PDA

View Full Version : The Spiritual and Physical Aspect of Salvation



Robert Pate
April 2nd, 2016, 04:49 PM
The Bible was written by people that were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, making the Bible a spiritual book. It was written by Christians for Christians. If you have never come to Christ as a repentant sinner and called upon Christ to save you, you will have trouble understanding the Bible simply because you do not posses the Holy Spirit who interprets what is written in the Bible. This is why many religions such as Calvinism, Catholicism and many others have writings other than the Bible. They don't understand what the Bible is saying so they try to interpret it by logic and reason and try to present their own ideas.

Example, When Paul said, "I Have Been Crucified With Christ" Paul did not mean that he had been physically crucified with Christ. What he meant was that he was spiritually "In Christ" when Christ was crucified. The spiritual always takes precedent over the physical. As far as Paul was concerned he had been physically crucified with Christ. As far as God was concerned Paul had been crucified and put to death in Jesus Christ, Romans 6:6.

The same thing with the resurrection of Christ. When Jesus arose from the dead we who are Christians arose with him, spiritually. God now sees us as new creations in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:17. We do not physically become new creations in Christ. We are spiritually made new creations in Christ. Again, God sees us as new creations in Christ because of the resurrection of Jesus.

Spiritually, we lived in Christ, died in Christ, have been resurrected in Christ and are now in heaven in Christ, Ephesians 2:6. It is all spiritual. It is all the way that God sees things. If this is the way that God sees things that is all that matters. In the end the spiritual will become a physical reality. For we shall be like him and we shall see him as he is, Colossians 3:4.

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 05:40 PM
The Bible was written by people that were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, making the Bible a spiritual book. It was written by Christians for Christians. If you have never come to Christ as a repentant sinner and called upon Christ to save you, you will have trouble understanding the Bible simply because you do not posses the Holy Spirit who interprets what is written in the Bible. This is why many religions such as Calvinism, Catholicism and many others have writings other than the Bible. They don't understand what the Bible is saying so they try to interpret it by logic and reason and try to present their own ideas.

Example, When Paul said, "I Have Been Crucified With Christ" Paul did not mean that he had been physically crucified with Christ. What he meant was that he was spiritually "In Christ" when Christ was crucified. The spiritual always takes precedent over the physical. As far as Paul was concerned he had been physically crucified with Christ. As far as God was concerned Paul had been crucified and put to death in Jesus Christ, Romans 6:6.

The same thing with the resurrection of Christ. When Jesus arose from the dead we who are Christians arose with him, spiritually. God now sees us as new creations in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:17. We do not physically become new creations in Christ. We are spiritually made new creations in Christ. Again, God sees us as new creations in Christ because of the resurrection of Jesus.

Spiritually, we lived in Christ, died in Christ, have been resurrected in Christ and are now in heaven in Christ, Ephesians 2:6. It is all spiritual. It is all the way that God sees things. If this is the way that God sees things that is all that matters. In the end the spiritual will become a physical reality. For we shall be like him and we shall see him as he is, Colossians 3:4.

Amen.

patrick jane
April 2nd, 2016, 05:58 PM
Very good post Robert

Totton Linnet
April 2nd, 2016, 06:07 PM
The Bible was written by people that were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, making the Bible a spiritual book. It was written by Christians for Christians. If you have never come to Christ as a repentant sinner and called upon Christ to save you, you will have trouble understanding the Bible simply because you do not posses the Holy Spirit who interprets what is written in the Bible. This is why many religions such as Calvinism, Catholicism and many others have writings other than the Bible. They don't understand what the Bible is saying so they try to interpret it by logic and reason and try to present their own ideas.

Example, When Paul said, "I Have Been Crucified With Christ" Paul did not mean that he had been physically crucified with Christ. What he meant was that he was spiritually "In Christ" when Christ was crucified. The spiritual always takes precedent over the physical. As far as Paul was concerned he had been physically crucified with Christ. As far as God was concerned Paul had been crucified and put to death in Jesus Christ, Romans 6:6.

The same thing with the resurrection of Christ. When Jesus arose from the dead we who are Christians arose with him, spiritually. God now sees us as new creations in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:17. We do not physically become new creations in Christ. We are spiritually made new creations in Christ. Again, God sees us as new creations in Christ because of the resurrection of Jesus.

Spiritually, we lived in Christ, died in Christ, have been resurrected in Christ and are now in heaven in Christ, Ephesians 2:6. It is all spiritual. It is all the way that God sees things. If this is the way that God sees things that is all that matters. In the end the spiritual will become a physical reality. For we shall be like him and we shall see him as he is, Colossians 3:4.

How FOOLISH you are Robert, you talk about failing to understand the Holy Ghost and so falling back on human logic.

You's saying here that YOU were in Christ when He was crucified, when God raised Him. I BELIEVE that.

That could only have happened if you were elected back then and predestined....yet you whine and grumble

Robert Pate
April 3rd, 2016, 08:02 AM
How FOOLISH you are Robert, you talk about failing to understand the Holy Ghost and so falling back on human logic.

You's saying here that YOU were in Christ when He was crucified, when God raised Him. I BELIEVE that.

That could only have happened if you were elected back then and predestined....yet you whine and grumble


The Gospel refutes predestination.

No one needs to be predestinated in the Gospel. In the Gospel Jesus reconciles the whole world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. Sinners and all. Salvation has been provided for everyone, Hebrews 2:9. So that now, "Whosoever that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 08:14 AM
So that now, "Whosoever that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.


The same as it has always been. (Genesis 4:26)

Robert Pate
April 3rd, 2016, 08:52 AM
The same as it has always been. (Genesis 4:26)

Only difference now is the Lord is Jesus Christ.

Bociferous
April 3rd, 2016, 09:53 AM
The Bible was written by people that were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, making the Bible a spiritual book. It was written by Christians for Christians. If you have never come to Christ as a repentant sinner and called upon Christ to save you, you will have trouble understanding the Bible simply because you do not posses the Holy Spirit who interprets what is written in the Bible.
You correctly make the claim that the Bible is a spiritual book but then use a typical literalist formula that seems to embrace the staunchest form of Christian exclusivism. I don't argue against exclusivism per se; it's clear to the theistic mind that two classifications of people [righteous and unrighteous, good and bad, etc.] exist. This can be readily observed by the (often subtle) lines drawn in interpretations of science, philosophy, the social sciences, etc.

But who belongs to which group is up to God, not Christianity. The thinking that only Christians are born again is a doctrine common to what I see as the more extremist form of Christian exclusivity and is problematic. When Jesus told His detractors they couldn't hear His word (Jn 8:43)or when Paul noted that spiritual things are foolishness to the carnal mind (1Cor 2:14), it's more defensible that these identify a lesser degree of spiritual awareness rather than none at all. I think a reasonable case can be made that to perform any act which can be properly deemed charitable requires some sort of union of intellectual content of the person performing the good act with God. The Hindu, atheist, Muslim, etc. who expresses love, empathy, defends injustice, etc. show evidence of being in union with (born again, spiritually synchronized with) God.

For example, it seems the Bible's greater truths lie in its metaphoric meanings--which coincides with the fact that Jesus taught almost exclusively in figurative language. Applying rational process to observed symbolism in His teaching, when He tells us that He is the embodiment of Truth itself (Jn 14:6)and that His sheep hear His voice (Jn 10:27), the metaphor, carried out logically, interprets this as "Those whose spirits have been made sufficiently true unite with and hear Truth [Christ]", and He pretty much taught this in Luke 10:30-37.

That all humans--Christian and non-Christian alike--operate with varied degrees of falsified essence and thus don't hear or see clearly (1Cor 13:12) seems to put us all in pretty much the same boat. Even our doing good is often tainted with self interest, re, for example:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/when-charitable-acts-are-tainted-by-personal-gain.html

I believe the Christian message is the highest fulfillment of God's communication to man, but God chose Israel and they thought they were the only apple of His eye [false exclusivism], then the Messiah came, stripped exclusivism from Israel and extended grace to we gentiles, who then declared Christ and His salvation to be ours and only ours [false exclusivism], by which we'll do well to listen to the Spirit speaking through Jeremiah: Jer 7:2-10.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 11:33 AM
Only difference now is the Lord is Jesus Christ.


The only name for salvation. (Acts 4:12)

Robert Pate
April 3rd, 2016, 04:17 PM
You correctly make the claim that the Bible is a spiritual book but then use a typical literalist formula that seems to embrace the staunchest form of Christian exclusivism. I don't argue against exclusivism per se; it's clear to the theistic mind that two classifications of people [righteous and unrighteous, good and bad, etc.] exist. This can be readily observed by the (often subtle) lines drawn in interpretations of science, philosophy, the social sciences, etc.

But who belongs to which group is up to God, not Christianity. The thinking that only Christians are born again is a doctrine common to what I see as the more extremist form of Christian exclusivity and is problematic. When Jesus told His detractors they couldn't hear His word (Jn 8:43)or when Paul noted that spiritual things are foolishness to the carnal mind (1Cor 2:14), it's more defensible that these identify a lesser degree of spiritual awareness rather than none at all. I think a reasonable case can be made that to perform any act which can be properly deemed charitable requires some sort of union of intellectual content of the person performing the good act with God. The Hindu, atheist, Muslim, etc. who expresses love, empathy, defends injustice, etc. show evidence of being in union with (born again, spiritually synchronized with) God.

For example, it seems the Bible's greater truths lie in its metaphoric meanings--which coincides with the fact that Jesus taught almost exclusively in figurative language. Applying rational process to observed symbolism in His teaching, when He tells us that He is the embodiment of Truth itself (Jn 14:6)and that His sheep hear His voice (Jn 10:27), the metaphor, carried out logically, interprets this as "Those whose spirits have been made sufficiently true unite with and hear Truth [Christ]", and He pretty much taught this in Luke 10:30-37.

That all humans--Christian and non-Christian alike--operate with varied degrees of falsified essence and thus don't hear or see clearly (1Cor 13:12) seems to put us all in pretty much the same boat. Even our doing good is often tainted with self interest, re, for example:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/when-charitable-acts-are-tainted-by-personal-gain.html

I believe the Christian message is the highest fulfillment of God's communication to man, but God chose Israel and they thought they were the only apple of His eye [false exclusivism], then the Messiah came, stripped exclusivism from Israel and extended grace to we gentiles, who then declared Christ and His salvation to be ours and only ours [false exclusivism], by which we'll do well to listen to the Spirit speaking through Jeremiah: Jer 7:2-10.

I agree that Jesus and his Gospel are for the whole world, John 3:16.

Problem is that the whole world does not want Jesus and his Gospel.

Only those who receive Christ and his Gospel are the benefactors of the Gospel, John 1:12.

Bociferous
April 3rd, 2016, 05:25 PM
I agree that Jesus and his Gospel are for the whole world, John 3:16.

Problem is that the whole world does not want Jesus and his Gospel.

Only those who receive Christ and his Gospel are the benefactors of the Gospel, John 1:12.
Agreed, in time the whole world does not heed Christ's call. My point is, when one stands outside the narrow box of literalism--whose borders are chains fashioned by the doctrines of men, not God--the atonement is full of grace toward all people, those who believe in Christ in time and the others in an agonizing cleansing later.

There are many sheep like the despised Samaritan who hear Christ's voice but wear different hats--Muslims, atheists, Mormons, Greek Orthodox, Baha'i, etc. Men rip God's grace from Him and throw it around their shoulders like it's their own blanket, holding others at arm's length screaming, "You can't have it, it's ours, only ours!" You speak of the Bible being spiritual, but the 'we're the only ones saved in the earth' club is a literalist corruption that denies the freedom of the Spirit.

If you don't believe Paul: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.", then believe Jesus: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." I agree with you that the Bible is literal and spiritual. The difficult part is meshing literal and symbolic into a coherent whole.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 06:10 PM
Problem is that the whole world does not want Jesus and his Gospel.


Jonah did not want to comply with Christ's instruction so he died, was resurrected and did what he was told to do.

It will be the same with unbelievers.

Bociferous
April 3rd, 2016, 07:14 PM
Jonah did not want to comply with Christ's instruction so he died, was resurrected and did what he was told to do.

It will be the same with unbelievers.
I like that analogy, so true.

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 10:41 PM
I agree that Jesus and his Gospel are for the whole world, John 3:16.

Problem is that the whole world does not want Jesus and his Gospel.

Only those who receive Christ and his Gospel are the benefactors of the Gospel, John 1:12.

The objective and subjective aspects of the gospel. This alludes many.

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 10:44 PM
Jonah did not want to comply with Christ's instruction so he died, was resurrected and did what he was told to do.

It will be the same with unbelievers.

No he was swallowed by a whale and spit out so he could do what he was told to. God has a myriad of ways to force the stubborn will.

Bociferous
April 4th, 2016, 10:48 AM
No he was swallowed by a whale and spit out so he could do what he was told to. God has a myriad of ways to force the stubborn will.
Jamie was using the Jonah example as a metaphor. The metaphor coheres with an aspect of spiritual reality.

Robert Pate
April 4th, 2016, 11:14 AM
Agreed, in time the whole world does not heed Christ's call. My point is, when one stands outside the narrow box of literalism--whose borders are chains fashioned by the doctrines of men, not God--the atonement is full of grace toward all people, those who believe in Christ in time and the others in an agonizing cleansing later.

There are many sheep like the despised Samaritan who hear Christ's voice but wear different hats--Muslims, atheists, Mormons, Greek Orthodox, Baha'i, etc. Men rip God's grace from Him and throw it around their shoulders like it's their own blanket, holding others at arm's length screaming, "You can't have it, it's ours, only ours!" You speak of the Bible being spiritual, but the 'we're the only ones saved in the earth' club is a literalist corruption that denies the freedom of the Spirit.

If you don't believe Paul: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.", then believe Jesus: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." I agree with you that the Bible is literal and spiritual. The difficult part is meshing literal and symbolic into a coherent whole.


The only religion that I know of who believe that the Gospel is only for them is Calvinism.

The Bible does not speak of an "agonizing cleansing" at a later time. Sounds like purgatory.

Nothing is ours that is not received by faith, John 1:12.

Bociferous
April 4th, 2016, 05:38 PM
The Bible does not speak of an "agonizing cleansing" at a later time. Sounds like purgatory.
It does. But the Catholics don't take the concept far enough, in part probably because to do so would conflict with Catholicism. The Bible does suggest a hard time for the wicked compared to the righteous (Isa 33:14-16, Mat 13:49-50) where, unlike with the offer of the easy way of sanctification to faith in life, God cleanses without mercy (Ezek 7:4, Ezek 9:10, Jer 11:11). The place of cleansing is revealed in Revelation in metaphor, the LOF, consider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MUINRM_9U

Godly fire is a Biblical metaphor of a process that cleanses, as per Isa 4:4-6 and dozens of other passages.


Nothing is ours that is not received by faith, John 1:12.
True, in time and space. But Jn 1:12 says only that those of Israel who were sufficiently cleansed or spiritually awakened (my interpretation) by God's Spirit (v. 13) are granted the right to become children of God. This passage makes no claim that those who believed are the only ones who are ever granted the honor RP.

Robert Pate
April 5th, 2016, 09:28 AM
It does. But the Catholics don't take the concept far enough, in part probably because to do so would conflict with Catholicism. The Bible does suggest a hard time for the wicked compared to the righteous (Isa 33:14-16, Mat 13:49-50) where, unlike with the offer of the easy way of sanctification to faith in life, God cleanses without mercy (Ezek 7:4, Ezek 9:10, Jer 11:11). The place of cleansing is revealed in Revelation in metaphor, the LOF, consider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MUINRM_9U

Godly fire is a Biblical metaphor of a process that cleanses, as per Isa 4:4-6 and dozens of other passages.


True, in time and space. But Jn 1:12 says only that those of Israel who were sufficiently cleansed or spiritually awakened (my interpretation) by God's Spirit (v. 13) are granted the right to become children of God. This passage makes no claim that those who believed are the only ones who are ever granted the honor RP.

We are spiritually awakened by hearing and believing the Gospel, Acts 2:41.

Bociferous
April 5th, 2016, 06:01 PM
We are spiritually awakened by hearing and believing the Gospel, Acts 2:41.
But this verse just says that those who received Peter's word [his preaching] were baptized, doesn't say anything about being spiritually awakened. Jn 1:9 suggests spiritual birth is to all.

I have to agree with the logic of my Calvinist brethren that the dead must first be vitalized before hearing and receiving God's word...unlike them, though, I see this granted to all men.

Robert Pate
April 5th, 2016, 06:09 PM
But this verse just says that those who received Peter's word [his preaching] were baptized, doesn't say anything about being spiritually awakened. Jn 1:9 suggests spiritual birth is to all.

I have to agree with the logic of my Calvinist brethren that the dead must first be vitalized before hearing and receiving God's word...unlike them, though, I see this granted to all men.

So, you believe that people get zapped with the Holy Spirit right out of a clear blue sky.

Try this.

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17. Which is the Gospel.

Bociferous
April 6th, 2016, 03:22 PM
So, you believe that people get zapped with the Holy Spirit right out of a clear blue sky.
Yes, that's pretty much how Jesus put it in Jn 3:7-8:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."



Try this.

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17. Which is the Gospel.
The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians (I'm guessing you may be coming from here?) interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person.

Some Arminians grant Jn 1:9 to describe antecedent movement by God to create that ability in all. Calvinist and prevenient grace Arminians are similar aside from the obvious elect/non-elect distinction of our Calvinist brethren.

I'm closer to the Arminian prevenient grace position, but with stronger emphasis on the necessity of God's movement to illuminate (regenerate; create moral ability). However, I don't believe we choose freely or make prescriptive judgements or decisions more or less evenly between good and evil as most do. Instead, I think we're spiritually born progressively and incrementally to lesser or greater ability to choose the true and good. In other words, we're agents who only have more or less ability to think/choose/act with respect to or measured against absolute good.

Robert Pate
April 6th, 2016, 03:38 PM
Yes, that's pretty much how Jesus put it in Jn 3:7-8:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."



The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians (I'm guessing you may be coming from here?) interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person.

Some Arminians grant Jn 1:9 to describe antecedent movement by God to create that ability in all. Calvinist and prevenient grace Arminians are similar aside from the obvious elect/non-elect distinction of our Calvinist brethren.

I'm closer to the Arminian prevenient grace position, but with stronger emphasis on the necessity of God's movement to illuminate (regenerate; create moral ability). However, I don't believe we choose freely or make prescriptive judgements or decisions more or less evenly between good and evil as most do. Instead, I think we're spiritually born progressively and incrementally to lesser or greater ability to choose the true and good. In other words, we're agents who only have more or less ability to think/choose/act with respect to or measured against absolute good.

I don't believe that we are MADE to hear anything. Hearing and believing is what we choose to do.

On the day of Pentecost thousands of Jews from all over Israel assembled in Jerusalem to hear and witness a new message from God. It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of those that heard and believed that day had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36.

They heard, they believed and they were converted to Christ. The number was about 8,000, Acts 2:41 also Acts 4:4. This event is what gave birth to the New Testament church. Which goes to prove "That faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17 Which is the Gospel.

Bociferous
April 7th, 2016, 09:49 AM
I don't believe that we are MADE to hear anything. Hearing and believing is what we choose to do.

On the day of Pentecost thousands of Jews from all over Israel assembled in Jerusalem to hear and witness a new message from God. It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of those that heard and believed that day had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36.

They heard, they believed and they were converted to Christ. The number was about 8,000, Acts 2:41 also Acts 4:4. This event is what gave birth to the New Testament church. Which goes to prove "That faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17 Which is the Gospel.
Okay, I think let's press "pause" and take the above back to a previous point I made:

"The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians...interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person."

Some questions.
1. Is it safe to say that you'd agree with the latter of the two highlighted positions?
2. If you answer 'yes' to #1, do you believe,
A...that all people are born with this innate spiritual ability, and,
B...would it be correct to say that God designed this innate ability into humans?

The power to choose comes from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. Trying to figure out if there's really that much difference in your and my position on this.

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 09:38 AM
Okay, I think let's press "pause" and take the above back to a previous point I made:

"The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians...interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person."

Some questions.
1. Is it safe to say that you'd agree with the latter of the two highlighted positions?
2. If you answer 'yes' to #1, do you believe,
A...that all people are born with this innate spiritual ability, and,
B...would it be correct to say that God designed this innate ability into humans?

The power to choose comes from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. Trying to figure out if there's really that much difference in your and my position on this.


Imagine this. On the day of Pentecost 8000 Jews, some that had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36, heard the Gospel for the very first time and were converted to Christ.

There is great power in the preaching of the Gospel. This is why Paul said, "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" Romans 1:16.

Bociferous
April 8th, 2016, 12:28 PM
Imagine this. On the day of Pentecost 8000 Jews, some that had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36, heard the Gospel for the very first time and were converted to Christ.

There is great power in the preaching of the Gospel. This is why Paul said, "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" Romans 1:16.
If you'd rather not answer the questions asked of you that's fine RP but I tire of repetitive passage posting and one-sided discussion after a while. That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

Doctrine chirping consists in posting passages with the assumption one's interpretation is correct and obvious to everyone else because it seems obvious to the poster.

Discussion is taking the time to discuss the various aspects of how we arrive at those interpretations in order to find how well they actually pass truth criteria.

Epoisses
April 8th, 2016, 12:36 PM
Jamie was using the Jonah example as a metaphor. The metaphor coheres with an aspect of spiritual reality.

Jesus used the metaphor of Jonah not the other way around.

Epoisses
April 8th, 2016, 12:38 PM
That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

They were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. I'm sure many saw the miracles of Christ but never confessed him until Pentecost.

Bociferous
April 8th, 2016, 12:42 PM
Jesus used the metaphor of Jonah not the other way around.
What is this supposed to mean? It appears to be an attempt to discredit the notion that Jamie's use of the Jonah story provides an insight but your meaning is ambiguous. Please elaborate.

Epoisses
April 8th, 2016, 01:03 PM
What is this supposed to mean? It appears to be an attempt to discredit the notion that Jamie's use of the Jonah story provides an insight but your meaning is ambiguous. Please elaborate.

I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Jonah died and was resurrected and then did God's will.

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 01:10 PM
If you'd rather not answer the questions asked of you that's fine RP but I tire of repetitive passage posting and one-sided discussion after a while. That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

Doctrine chirping consists in posting passages with the assumption one's interpretation is correct and obvious to everyone else because it seems obvious to the poster.

Discussion is taking the time to discuss the various aspects of how we arrive at those interpretations in order to find how well they actually pass truth criteria.


All through the Old Testament men are making choices by their own free will. They are even making choices to sin like King David and Abraham and many others.

Man is an independent agent that can make choices, some bad, some good. God does not interfere.

jamie
April 8th, 2016, 03:02 PM
I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Johan died and was resurrected and then did God's will.


Exactly. Jesus was buried for three days and three nights the same as Jonah.

Bociferous
April 8th, 2016, 05:11 PM
I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Johan died and was resurrected and then did God's will.
Okay. I think she just saw the way the Jonah story could be used to suggest a metaphor about salvation. At least that's the way I understood her.

Robert Pate
April 9th, 2016, 04:46 PM
Okay. I think she just saw the way the Jonah story could be used to suggest a metaphor about salvation. At least that's the way I understood her.

Jonah was a Calvinist. He was saved and wanted everybody else to go to hell.