Originally posted by FreakyKBHExcept, if one holds to the OSAS doctrine (as RBH seems to), then confession shouldn't be required at all.
However, while delivery may not be his speciality, RB is correct on a few things. I John 1:9 promises the believer that if he confesses his sin, God is faithful and just to forgive that sin and to cleanse the believer from all unrighteousness. Throughout Scripture, there are no restrictions on that grace.
Originally posted by lucifershammerConfession from that perspective is not required for salvation, but for filling of the Holy Spirit which is the first requirement of spiritual maturity.
Except, if one holds to the OSAS doctrine (as RBH seems to), then confession shouldn't be required at all.
After salvation, what? Spiritual maturity is the command. Those who do not adjust to the justice of God (as it attempts to bless us) will face the discipline of that justice as it adjusts to them.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat about a sin against the Holy Spirit?
I John 1:9 promises the believer that if he confesses his sin, God is faithful and just to forgive that sin and to cleanse the believer from all unrighteousness. Throughout Scripture, there are no restrictions on that grace.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMeaning... what?
After salvation, what? Spiritual maturity is the command. Those who do not adjust to the justice of God (as it attempts to bless us) will face the discipline of that justice as it adjusts to them.
What happens if I am "saved" but choose not to accept 'spiritual maturity'? According to the OSAS view, God won't take my salvation away.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, St Matthew 12:31-32.
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (I think) is what you are referring to here. That is achieved by rejecting the convincing work of the Holy Spirit, which can only be 'finalized' in death.
If I spoke out against and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, it would seem that this is indeed an
exception to I John 1:19 that you paraphrased above. I could not confess it and could not
be forgiven it.
So, when St John said 'all unrighteousness' he must have meant 'all unrighteousness but...'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe promise that John relayed was for believers. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can only be committed by unbelievers.
Yes, St Matthew 12:31-32.
If I spoke out against and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, it would seem that this is indeed an
exception to I John 1:19 that you paraphrased above. I could not confess it and could not
be forgiven it.
So, when St John said 'all unrighteousness' he must have meant 'all unrighteousness but...'
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't believe in "Secret Decoder Ring" theories; I think the Gospels were meant to be read and understood by the average person. That is who Jesus preached to. Therefore, I reject that an "exegesis" based on the plain meaning of plain words spoken to the "plain" Man is "superficial".
Good post.
While I would never deny that a superficial (not intended as an insult, merely as a description of exegesis) reading of many passages can yield certain stances, until Scripture is viewed in its entirety, stopping at any point along the way invariably falls short of the full intended meaning.
Biblical salvation is a non-meritorious propos her adjust to God's justice in blessing, or His justice will adjust to us in discipline.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't believe in SDR's either... with the exception that doctrine is the domain of believers, and that via a properly trained person with the gift of pastor/teacher.
I don't believe in "Secret Decoder Ring" theories; I think the Gospels were meant to be read and understood by the average person. That is who Jesus preached to. Therefore, I reject that an "exegesis" based on the plain meaning of plain words spoken to the "plain" Man is "superfical".
Nonetheless, even given a superficial rendering of the Gospels one runs into more contradictions than seemingly humanly imaginable. God wants us to walk around without eyes, hands, or feet? We're to carry a cross with us every where we go? Hate our families? Without allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, we end up with all kinds of religious torture. Hardly a happy life as God intended.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am not suggesting that the Gospels have to be read LITERALLY; there are many passages that are clearly parables or are in figuerative language. However, I do not regard it as a particularly difficult proposition to read the Gospels and understand its basic message based on a common sense evaluation of the words used in the context they are used in. As it is also pretty clear that Jesus preached to many non-believers as well as a few believers and that he spoke in a clear manner (according to the Gospels anyway), thus I believe this is how he would have intended his words to be interpreted.
I don't believe in SDR's either... with the exception that doctrine is the domain of believers, and that via a properly trained person with the gift of pastor/teacher.
Nonetheless, even given a superficial rendering of the Gospels one runs into more contradictions than seemingly humanly imaginable. God wants us to walk around without eyes, hands, or fe ripture, we end up with all kinds of religious torture. Hardly a happy life as God intended.
That is, I see no reason to use extraordinary methods of interpretation in understanding this document. Perhaps you could give some reason why such methods are necessary.