Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

[Josiah]

Agreed. After going to seminary I soon realized that theology has a lot of grey.

Lutherans tend to regard such as Mystery. And it's okay to have tensions (indeed, Lutherans tend to look at much of Scripture and theology as Law or Gospel) and certainly to have unanswered questions. MUCH heresy is based on some individual person (and perhaps denomination) designating self (exclusively) as "The Answer Man" whose divine mandate is to make God make sense, to connect the dots, to fix what God revealed so that it's as smart as that self insists that self is. IMO, it's important to let God be God, let God have the "last word," admit God very likely knows more about the divine than any of us (God may even be smarter than any of us!!). As my Greek Orthodox friend laments about much of Western Christianity, "Christians lost their ability to shut up." I (a Western Christian, lol) largely agree. Protestantism was born (in part) as a protest to the subjecting of Scripture to the brain, the theories, the philosophies, the prescience understandings, the conjectures of man (and of single denominations), getting back to the words of Scripture allowing questions to be questions. But as often happens in such movements, rather quickly, some Protestants insisted on doing EXACTLY what they rebuked the RCC for doing (only at times worse).

I don't think the primary purpose of Christians is to cognatively "get it" and certainly not to correct God so that He jibes with our current sense of reality, our current philosophies and psychologies. I think our "job" is the trust and obey, to have faith and show love: we are called to faith and to ministry. I confess to being a theology junkie (big time).... and since my conversion to Lutheranism a few years ago (I'm a former Catholic), I'm increasingly positive about the Lutheran "take" on things. But I also realize that God is bigger than me, indeed bigger than ALL Christians (now and throughout time) together. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." I think God may laugh at some of our "takes"..... until it clearly contradicts what He Himself revealed to us in Scripture, when it flows from our supreme egoism in insisting self knows more than God, when it denies His essence (love): then I don't think God laughs.

I have a Ph.D. One of the most important things I learned - early on - is that at times the wisest, smartest thing one can say is "I don't know." Indeed, we CANNOT learn, we cannot grow, we cannot discover and correct error unless we begin with that confession. What I'm suggesting is not relativism but humility.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Lutherans tend to regard such as Mystery. And it's okay to have tensions (indeed, Lutherans tend to look at much of Scripture and theology as Law or Gospel) and certainly to have unanswered questions. MUCH heresy is based on some individual person (and perhaps denomination) designating self (exclusively) as "The Answer Man" whose divine mandate is to make God make sense, to connect the dots, to fix what God revealed so that it's as smart as that self insists that self is. IMO, it's important to let God be God, let God have the "last word," admit God very likely knows more about the divine than any of us (God may even be smarter than any of us!!). As my Greek Orthodox friend laments about much of Western Christianity, "Christians lost their ability to shut up." I (a Western Christian, lol) largely agree. Protestantism was born (in part) as a protest to the subjecting of Scripture to the brain, the theories, the philosophies, the prescience understandings, the conjectures of man (and of single denominations), getting back to the words of Scripture allowing questions to be questions. But as often happens in such movements, rather quickly, some Protestants insisted on doing EXACTLY what they rebuked the RCC for doing (only at times worse).

I don't think the primary purpose of Christians is to cognatively "get it" and certainly not to correct God so that He jibes with our current sense of reality, our current philosophies and psychologies. I think our "job" is the trust and obey, to have faith and show love: we are called to faith and to ministry. I confess to being a theology junkie (big time).... and since my conversion to Lutheranism a few years ago (I'm a former Catholic), I'm increasingly positive about the Lutheran "take" on things. But I also realize that God is bigger than me, indeed bigger than ALL Christians (now and throughout time) together. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." I think God may laugh at some of our "takes"..... until it clearly contradicts what He Himself revealed to us in Scripture, when it flows from our supreme egoism in insisting self knows more than God, when it denies His essence (love): then I don't think God laughs.

I have a Ph.D. One of the most important things I learned - early on - is that at times the wisest, smartest thing one can say is "I don't know." Indeed, we CANNOT learn, we cannot grow, we cannot discover and correct error unless we begin with that confession. What I'm suggesting is not relativism but humility.



- Josiah

Lutherans tend to be surface dwellers...

 

[Imalive]

Lutherans tend to regard such as Mystery. And it's okay to have tensions (indeed, Lutherans tend to look at much of Scripture and theology as Law or Gospel) and certainly to have unanswered questions. MUCH heresy is based on some individual person (and perhaps denomination) designating self (exclusively) as "The Answer Man" whose divine mandate is to make God make sense, to connect the dots, to fix what God revealed so that it's as smart as that self insists that self is. IMO, it's important to let God be God, let God have the "last word," admit God very likely knows more about the divine than any of us (God may even be smarter than any of us!!). As my Greek Orthodox friend laments about much of Western Christianity, "Christians lost their ability to shut up." I (a Western Christian, lol) largely agree. Protestantism was born (in part) as a protest to the subjecting of Scripture to the brain, the theories, the philosophies, the prescience understandings, the conjectures of man (and of single denominations), getting back to the words of Scripture allowing questions to be questions. But as often happens in such movements, rather quickly, some Protestants insisted on doing EXACTLY what they rebuked the RCC for doing (only at times worse).

I don't think the primary purpose of Christians is to cognatively "get it" and certainly not to correct God so that He jibes with our current sense of reality, our current philosophies and psychologies. I think our "job" is the trust and obey, to have faith and show love: we are called to faith and to ministry. I confess to being a theology junkie (big time).... and since my conversion to Lutheranism a few years ago (I'm a former Catholic), I'm increasingly positive about the Lutheran "take" on things. But I also realize that God is bigger than me, indeed bigger than ALL Christians (now and throughout time) together. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." I think God may laugh at some of our "takes"..... until it clearly contradicts what He Himself revealed to us in Scripture, when it flows from our supreme egoism in insisting self knows more than God, when it denies His essence (love): then I don't think God laughs.

I have a Ph.D. One of the most important things I learned - early on - is that at times the wisest, smartest thing one can say is "I don't know." Indeed, we CANNOT learn, we cannot grow, we cannot discover and correct error unless we begin with that confession. What I'm suggesting is not relativism but humility.



- Josiah

A phD who learned I dont know. Thats funny.
My ex always said that. I'm a professor in idunnoscience.

 

[Albion]

A phD who learned I dont know. Thats funny.
My ex always said that. I'm a professor in idunnoscience.

The least well educated are the ones who think they know it all. Those who are well educated usually have learned that there are many more complexities (to whatever it is) than the people in the first group ever suspected.

 

[meluckycharms]

The least well educated are the ones who think they know it all. Those who are well educated usually have learned that there are many more complexities (to whatever it is) than the people in the first group ever suspected.

Or you can be a Calvinist who defines tolerance as "accepting someone right to be wrong".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

The least well educated are the ones who think they know it all. Those who are well educated usually have learned that there are many more complexities (to whatever it is) than the people in the first group ever suspected.

...and sometimes wise men are fools...
Colossians 2:8-23
[8]Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
[9]For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.
[10]So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
[11]When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.
[12]For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
[13]You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins.
[14]He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.
[15]In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross.
[16]So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.
[17]For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.
[18]Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud,
[19]and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it.
[20]You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as,
[21]“Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”?
[22]Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them.
[23]These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

 

[Pedrito]

Post 218:

Really? Here's what the Athanasian Creed states:

"[b[Whosoever will be saved[/b], before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. "

Saved from perishing everlastingly.

Apparently, "it" HASN'T been "firmly established" after all.

==============================================================================================

Perish everlastingly? Lets have a look at some enlightening dictionary definitions.

Pedrito consulted the following dictionaries:
- MacMillan Dictionary of the American Language;
- Cambridge Dictionary;
- Oxford Dictionary;
- Collins Dictionary;
- Dictionary.com.

He found that the following meanings for “perish” could be gleaned from the five:

1. To die, usually because of an illness or something that happens suddenly or violently, to die by accident, by being killed, by being destroyed, by harsh conditions or privation. Also (of things such as hope) to suffer complete ruin or destruction.

2. To stop happening or existing, to come to an end, to pass away or disappear, to be destroyed forever.

3. (Of materials such as rubber, leather, food) to decay and start to break into pieces, to lose its normal qualities, to become useless.

==============================================================================================

One dictionary only, dictionary.com gave a fourth class of meaning:

“To suffer spiritual death.”

What looked like an authoritative quote from the Bible was given as a supporting example.

Unfortunately, the example given to support that meaning of “spiritual death”, ("Save us, lest we perish"), however graphic and convincing it is designed to be, would appear to actually be a modified quote from a Bible verse relating to physical death. (See Matthew 8:25 and its companion passages Mark 4:38 and Luke 8:24.) Therefore that definition can hardly be classified as reliable. Could it even be said to be contrived?

==============================================================================================

Ergo, it would seem that the Athanasian Creed not only teaches salvation by works, but also teaches annihilationism.

==============================================================================================

But it must be remembered that, because that creed is considered of great import for another reason, it is deemed crucial that these glaring deficiencies be explained away or ignored. Isn’t that indeed so?

(If Pedrito has missed a Scripture or two from which the supporting quote noted above was taken, he is open to being so informed.)

Is “annihilationism” what the Poster of Post #125 meant when referring to ...the just wrath of God...?

 

[meluckycharms]

...and sometimes wise men are fools...
Colossians 2:8-23

Colossians 2 is Paul expresses concern against false teachers among the Jews (v.*4,*v.*6,*v.*7), and against the Gentile philosophy (v.*8-12). He represents the privileges of Christians (v.*13-15).and concludes with a caution against the judaizing teachers, and those who would introduce the worship of angels (v.*16-23).

So what does it have to do with anything unless you are suggesting that we are Jewish teachers or gentile philosophers who worship angels in Laodicea?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

==============================================================================================

Perish everlastingly? Lets have a look at some enlightening dictionary definitions.

Pedrito consulted the following dictionaries:
- MacMillan Dictionary of the American Language;
- Cambridge Dictionary;
- Oxford Dictionary;
- Collins Dictionary;
- Dictionary.com.

He found that the following meanings for “perish” could be gleaned from the five:

1. To die, usually because of an illness or something that happens suddenly or violently, to die by accident, by being killed, by being destroyed, by harsh conditions or privation. Also (of things such as hope) to suffer complete ruin or destruction.

2. To stop happening or existing, to come to an end, to pass away or disappear, to be destroyed forever.

3. (Of materials such as rubber, leather, food) to decay and start to break into pieces, to lose its normal qualities, to become useless.

==============================================================================================

Arthur finds it interesting that the definitions provided by Pedrito for "perish" generally seem to describe a process of dying or decaying rather than a final state of being. It is most curious, is it not, that this ongoing process ("perish") should be paired with "everlastingly". Might Pedrito, by chance, have looked up the definition of "everlasting" when he was exploring the definition of "perish"?

On an unrelated subject, one wonders if Pedrito ignores all historic context when determining the intent and meaning of the original writer and hearers, or are Creeds singled out for special treatment? I assume you do know why the Athenasian Creed was created and that it was not to confront the perceived heresies of "non-anihilationism" and "salvation apart from works".

 

[Pedrito]

In Post 247 Pedrito presented the following reliable meanings he had found for the word "perish" in five dictionaries[emphasis added]:

1. To die, usually because of an illness or something that happens suddenly or violently, to die by accident, by being killed, by being destroyed, by harsh conditions or privation. Also (of things such as hope) to suffer complete ruin or destruction.

2. To stop happening or existing, to come to an end, to pass away or disappear, to be destroyed forever.

3. (Of materials such as rubber, leather, food) to decay and start to break into pieces, to lose its normal qualities, to become useless.

Pedrito also presented a definition from one only dictionary that, based on the evidence supplied for its support, shows it to be contrived: "spiritual death".

However, in Post #249, the Poster said:

Arthur finds it interesting that the definitions provided by Pedrito for "perish" generally seem to describe a process of dying or decaying rather than a final state of being.

What is the name of that technique that attempts to draw attention away from strong, inconvenient evidence?

==============================================================================================

And as for It is most curious, is it not, that this ongoing process ("perish") [note the definition of "perish" given – "ongoing process"] should be paired with "everlastingly". Might Pedrito, by chance, have looked up the definition of "everlasting" when he was exploring the definition of "perish"?

Well, the definitions Pedrito found for “everlasting” are:

1. lasting forever, eternal, never coming to an end.

2. lasting or continuing for a very long or an indefinitely long time.

3. incessant; constantly recurring.

4. seeming never to change or end.

5. wearisome; tedious; continuing for so long that it becomes annoying.

The first definition appears to be the one that applies in this instance.

==============================================================================================

So the Athanasian Creed is clearly describing an everlasting death from which there is no deliverance ("second death"), as opposed to the normal physical death from which everyone is delivered.

 

[Pedrito]

Post 238, commenting on Post #237:

I don't think you understand the point I was making...

Actually, Pedrito would suggest that he actually did understand.

Pedrito was merely highlighting an example of the lengths that are gone to, attempting to show that the Bible is not an internally consistent document, and that therefore it is not a source of clearly defined, authoritative truth.

For example, from the same Post:

If there wasn't so much grey why are there so many denominations and which one is right?

1. If meluckycharms doesn't think the denomination he belongs to is demonstrably the most correct, why is he associating himself with it?

2. The primary reason that there are so many denominations, is that they embrace different combinations of the doctrines developed in post-apostolic eras.

3. Pedrito has previously offered the thought (or stated it in a one of his backlog of penned posts yet to be submitted), that the air can be totally cleared, and that the one denomination that most accurately represents God's truth can actually be discovered, quite simply. The method, which most if not all denominations will consider virtually anathema because it represents danger to them, is:
- Determine with accuracy from the Bible alone, (ignoring all post-apostolic deliberations and doctrines, and their normal attempted retrofitting into Scripture), what the original Apostolic Gospel actually was:
-- That is done by seeing what each verse actually says (as opposed to what we are led to believe it must mean), while considering its context;
- Examine each and every post-apostolic modification to those Apostolic doctrines and practices, and determine which of those modifications were demonstrably inspired by God, and which were demonstrably not; there are ways of doing that.

==============================================================================================

Were that to be done honestly and thoroughly, Pedrito suggests that a clear "winner" would have to emerge.

However, Pedrito also suggests that no denomination, and few individuals from any of them, ever would be willing (or ever will be willing) to do that.

The reason is, that there are are so many denominations, that the odds are very slim that any particular denomination will end up being the one shown to be closest to God's truth. The risk is too great. Too great for each individual denomination. To great for all denominations.

==============================================================================================

However, the method remains valid, and the result would be penetratingly revealing.

Is anyone interested enough, honest enough, and brave enough, to persue the idea to see where it ends up leading?

 

[Josiah]

.


Why are BOTH John Calvin and Jakob Arminius WRONG?


Why are HUMAN attempts to Make God Simple and Logical WRONG?


Why are there NOT just two Options: Greek Fate or Free Will?


Why BOTH Arminians and Calvinists must ignore LOTS of Scriptures to "answer" this question?


This video is part of a class lecture and is 32 minutes long (I realize, too long for many) but he comes to the crux of things around minute 15 (listen to the rest for sure). I invite you to listen to the whole 32 minutes as he explains both Calvin and Arminius - the two theories that prevail today in modern Western Christianity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8



The teacher here is Dr. Joel Biermann from Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis.



- Josiah





.

 

[Pedrito]

Post 218:

Really? Here's what the Athanasian Creed states:

"[b[Whosoever will be saved[/b], before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

==============================================================================================

The so-called Athanasian Creed has been shown to have not been created by Athanasius, but rather composed in the 5th or 6th century.

That creed appears to contain elements of the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon).

Therefore, if one is to accept the Athanasian Creed, that person must accept all the accepted doctrines of the church councils up until that time – termed “the catholic faith”.

==============================================================================================

One such doctrine that must be accepted is that Mary is “the Mother of God”.

Apparently, people who are Lutherans, High Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics and the like, should have no problem with that.

However, most Protestants, including Low Anglicans (Evangelical Anglicans) and Evangelicals in general, are said to reject that doctrine.

Which means, that according to the Athanasian Creed, those people “shall perish everlastingly”.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito cannot help but wonder how many Protestants have invoked the Athanasian Creed (and still do) to support a personally important doctrine, without realising (or without wanting to acknowledge) that that creed:
- Teaches salvation by works;
- Promotes annihilationism;
- And states that the fate of those very people who have invoked it, is to perish everlastingly.


Based on Pedrito’s long-term observation, that situation highlights one of the hallmarks of Christendom, whatever the flavour:

Close your eyes to detrimental truth, in order to accumulate (by cherry-picking) support for cherished doctrines.


How do you think the God of truth and justice views that sort of thing?

 

[Josiah]

This thread is NOT about Mary.

But since an attempt has been made to hijack it to that topic....


Is the ancient (and until a couple of centuries ago, the universal) title of Mary the Mother of God an accurate title for Mary?


FIRST, we need to determine if Jesus has a divine nature and if Scripture calls Jesus specifically "GOD" and if Jesus seems to permit (even welcome) that: See

Matthew 1:23,
John 20:28,
First Timothy 3:16,
Titus 2:13,
2 Peter 1:1.

Also, John 8:24 & John 8:58. To see what even unbelievers said of Him, John 10:30-33.


SECOND, is Mary His mother?

See Luke 2:1-7.



So....

1. It is appropriate and biblically exampled to call Jesus "GOD" To deny such is to condemn Scripture as wrong.
2. Mary is the mother of Jesus. To deny such is to condemn Scripture as wrong.
3. Thus, Mary is the mother of God (here referring to the Incarnate Son Jesus)


What, IMO, is inappropriate is to call Mary the Mother of the Trinity. Mary did NOT bore any member of the Trinity although she did bore Jesus (who is the Incarnate God); thus it is accurate and biblical to call Mary "the Mother of God" (as nearly all Christians in history did and most still do) but wrong to call Mary the Mother of the Trinity. Scripture calls each member of the Trinity as "GOD" and thus Christians may agree with Scripture that this is appropriate. But of course to reference the Trinity would be to reference ALL THREE together (which Mary did not bore).


But again, if one wishes to disagree with Scripture as to whether Jesus may be called "GOD" and that Mary born Him - this is not the appropriate thread. Start one entitled, "Scripture is WRONG to call Jesus "GOD" and WRONG to Indicate Mary Bore Him." I'll post in it. THIS thread is about why are some saved and not others - and the new conjectures of two 16th Century men on that: John Calvin and Jakob Arminius.



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Apparently, people who are Lutherans, High Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics and the like, should have no problem with that.

It is just a small footnote, but the term is High Church Anglicans, meaning that they favor a lot of ceremony. The term really doesn't imply much of anything as concerns doctrine except for that which is common among Anglicans--and certainly not that they are better than Low Churchmen.

 

[NewCreation435]

Post 238, commenting on Post #237:


Actually, Pedrito would suggest that he actually did understand.

Pedrito was merely highlighting an example of the lengths that are gone to, attempting to show that the Bible is not an internally consistent document, and that therefore it is not a source of clearly defined, authoritative truth.

For example, from the same Post:


1. If meluckycharms doesn't think the denomination he belongs to is demonstrably the most correct, why is he associating himself with it?

2. The primary reason that there are so many denominations, is that they embrace different combinations of the doctrines developed in post-apostolic eras.

3. Pedrito has previously offered the thought (or stated it in a one of his backlog of penned posts yet to be submitted), that the air can be totally cleared, and that the one denomination that most accurately represents God's truth can actually be discovered, quite simply. The method, which most if not all denominations will consider virtually anathema because it represents danger to them, is:
- Determine with accuracy from the Bible alone, (ignoring all post-apostolic deliberations and doctrines, and their normal attempted retrofitting into Scripture), what the original Apostolic Gospel actually was:
-- That is done by seeing what each verse actually says (as opposed to what we are led to believe it must mean), while considering its context;
- Examine each and every post-apostolic modification to those Apostolic doctrines and practices, and determine which of those modifications were demonstrably inspired by God, and which were demonstrably not; there are ways of doing that.

==============================================================================================

Were that to be done honestly and thoroughly, Pedrito suggests that a clear "winner" would have to emerge.

However, Pedrito also suggests that no denomination, and few individuals from any of them, ever would be willing (or ever will be willing) to do that.

The reason is, that there are are so many denominations, that the odds are very slim that any particular denomination will end up being the one shown to be closest to God's truth. The risk is too great. Too great for each individual denomination. To great for all denominations.

==============================================================================================

However, the method remains valid, and the result would be penetratingly revealing.

Is anyone interested enough, honest enough, and brave enough, to persue the idea to see where it ends up leading?

And yet scholars examine the same text in the original Hebrew and Greek languages and come up with different conclusions. We could both look at the same text, in the same context and come up with different answers and find different churches acceptable.

 

[meluckycharms]

1. If meluckycharms doesn't think the denomination he belongs to is demonstrably the most correct, why is he associating himself with it?

I am non-denominational.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

- Determine with accuracy from the Bible alone, (ignoring all post-apostolic deliberations and doctrines, and their normal attempted retrofitting into Scripture), what the original Apostolic Gospel actually was:

Well, considering the books in the Bible were selected and recognized as scripture as a direct result of "post-apistolic deliberations" and did not simply fall from heaven, you would have to throw out the Bible all together and rediscover which books are, in fact, the word of God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

Post #258:

Well, considering the books in the Bible were selected and recognized as scripture as a direct result of "post-apistolic deliberations" and did not simply fall from heaven, you would have to throw out the Bible all together and rediscover which books are, in fact, the word of God.

Actually, only the “New Testament” would need to be thrown out based on that criterion.

The canon of the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures was established before Jesus walked the Earth, despite what the Roman Catholic Church might like to claim.

According to Pedrito’s investigation, the canon of the Inspired Greek Scriptures appears to have been compiled no later than (possibly well before) 367AD, verified in 382AD (except for the perspective of the Orthodox realm) and ratified multiple times, finally in 1546AD. That initial compilation occurred before most of the doctrines that are retrofitted into that set of writings, were formulated.

==============================================================================================

So Pedrito has to ask something of the author of Post #258. (Not detail about his doctrinal beliefs.)

Does that author consider that God exercised some overriding influence in the formulation of the New Testament Canon? Or not?

If not, upon what authority does that author presume to base his faith?

Does that author believe that the combined Hebrew and Greek Scriptures by themselves form a cohesive whole with respect to revealing God’s mechanism for rescuing mankind from the consequences of (may Pedrito use the term) sin?

Once again, if not, upon what authority does that author presume to base his faith?

And what does the authority that the Poster accepts, declare regarding “Why are Some Saved and Not Others”?


As Pedrito has seen stated elsewhere: “Faith without reason is superstition.”

 

[Pedrito]

As indirectly requested in Post #2 in the “Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread” thread, Pedrito will now revert to the “first person” presentation style from now on. I ask for understanding if I lapse into the third person at times due to force of habit. The reason I felt compelled to use the third person style, is explained in Post #4 of that thread.

For a while, I will be adding this to the first new Post in each thread I have already posted in using the third person “Pedrito”.

Post #256:

And yet scholars examine the same text in the original Hebrew and Greek languages and come up with different conclusions. We could both look at the same text, in the same context and come up with different answers and find different churches acceptable.

I then have to ask something, and request something.

1. On what firm foundation then, does that Poster base his beliefs? (This is not a question about what those beliefe are.)

2. I request a dozen or so examples of the texts mentioned above, together with the variant conclusions that are generally drawn. A relevant link or two would suffice. I suggest we start with variances pertaining to core issues (however that Poster cares to define that term).


I thank that Poster in advance, for his meaningful responses.


(Could it be in fact that that those disagreeing scholars are viewing the Holy Scriptures through the different coloured lenses of their preconceived doctrinal biases?)