Featured Is the Pope Emergent?

How "liberal"?

The Jesuit order has been running the astronomical program for the Vatican - and promoting the idea of little green men style alien encounter.

Funes is not the first Jesuit heading up the Vatican's astronomy group - to insist on E.T. scenarios - as the real deal.

http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=4837

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...uy-Consolmagno-Aliens-souls-living-stars.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...omer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

And of course -

But for those interested in seeing this in Italian -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MYCfq4uA7k

All of them Jesuit. All of them giving the same message for the Church.

looks like duck - quacks like a duck - walks like a duck.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If you are redeemed you are saved. Apparently the pope is a bit weak on theology. There are several good seminaries he can attend.

 

According to 'evangelical speak'. And, of course, you will claim your definition is the 'biblical' one.

"Basically, redemption is collective and salvation is individual. By his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ redeemed humanity collectively from slavery to sin and from the debt of punishment mankind -- as a whole -- owed due to sin. Each and every person, Christian or non-Christian, is redeemed because he is a member of the human race.

Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. Although a member of redeemed humanity, and therefore himself redeemed, a person can freely choose to deliberately reject the graces won for him by Christ and go to hell".
Michelle Arnold

 

Even so, to give only a portion of the gospel truth is to not give it at all, it will be of none effect and cause division.

 

Redeemed is not collective. Study the Book of Ruth. Boaz is the kinsman/Redeemer. Did he Redeem Ruth or did he bring redemption to the entire town--all the citizens. He paid the purchase price for the land and with the land came Ruth whom he married. It was Ruth that was redeemed. That is the picture there. He was a picture of Christ redeeming those who are willing, as Ruth was, to be redeemed.
Remember the other brother was not a willing redeemer.

Likewise in Hosea. His wife (a former prostitute) ran away from Hosea to her former occupation. She became a slave. Hosea had to go down to the "auction block" and redeem her. He didn't redeem all the slaves but paid the purchase price, the price of redemption, for his wife only.

The price that Christ paid is the price for those that believe on him.
He died for all, but not all are redeemed. Only those that accept the purchase price of that redemption are freed. It must be accepted. It is a gift. But if the gift is rejected or refused there is no redemption.

 

When social justice is placed on a high level than teaching about Christ suffering death alone saves us then you have a social movement, not a church.

 

Ok well that is heresy. Or it may be out of ignorance. Liberty University has an online certificate program for folks like yourself who could use some doctrinal training without having to pursue a degree.

 

True enough but his bigger issue thinking, along with the pope, that one can be redeemed but not saved. That is a pretty serious issue.

 

No thanks, I was educated at Biola and graduated from a Baptist university with better accreditation than Liberty, so I'm not the ignorant hick you think I am. Liberty is not accredited by the Association of Theological Schools, the national accreditation agency for graduate-level seminaries. Instead, it is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Our redemption was paid for by Christ's suffering on the cross. However, it is still up to individual hearts to accept that redemption via conversion of our hearts and the keeping of Christ's commands. For example, John 3:16 teaches that Jesus did redeem the world, but that there is a condition of belief placed upon each soul. It is not automatic. Jesus Himself, just before He ascended, taught that "all who believe and are baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). He said this after He appeared in His glorified Body and the sacrifice was complete. All mankind is redeemed, but only those who accept the terms of that redemption are saved.

 

Uh...you cannot get a better accreditation than what liberty has. It is the top level regional accreditation. And Jesus never said such a thing. In fact we are not yet redeemed until Jesus returns. We only have a promise of a future redemption if we are in Christ.

 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is nothing there about redemption. There is no teaching here that Jesus redeemed the world. If you believe that then you believe in universalism, which is an obvious heresy.

 

Wrong! By His shed blood He redeemed all mankind but not saved all mankind. This is the difference. You DEFINE redemption and salvation as the SAME thing. They are not. He has redeemed us, but did not automatically award salvation to all. THAT would be universalism. We must make our claim through our expressed faith and baptism. Even after that, we must still persevere to the end. Those who reject Him may repent and claim the rewards that Christ gained for them. Yet, for those who do not, they have thrown their salvation away. God forces nothing on us, being the Creator and Master of freedom.

 

Do you just make up definitions as you go along? Where do you get this from? It certainly isn't Biblical.
Redeem is to "pay the purchase price."
I gave you two examples already in the persons of Boaz and Hosea.
Boaz redeemed of Naomi her land and in the process a wife, Ruth.
Hosea redeemed his wife after she went astray. He purchased her back from the slave owner. He redeemed her. He didn't buy all the slaves back, but only his wife--just one. She was the one willing to go back with him.

Christ may have paid the penalty for all of mankind's sin. But that is not redemption. Not all mankind has received the price that was paid, such as Ruth and the wife of Hosea. One cannot be redeemed unless he actively receives the redemption provided. Otherwise it is universalism, a heresy.

Salvation is to believe: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Redemption is what Christ provided. But it still must be accepted.
Salvation is man's acceptance of what God has provided. Both are necessary.
"For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast."

In Romans 8 Paul says "we wait for the redemption of our bodies."
Our redemption will not be complete until the coming of Christ.
That, however, refers to the resurrection of our bodies, which is impossible for those who have not been redeemed spiritually.

 

You two may be talking passed each other. I think DHK believes in free will and he reject univeralism as well as limited atonement (if I am not mistaken.).

He may have stated something in a way that is inconsistent with those beliefs - but if so - then it was a mistake in the way he stated it because I am pretty sure he believes the list above.

Are you both arguing the same point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is no question that the Pope believes in eternal hell with lots of heretics going there. Even the justification for the torture of the inquisition was based on the idea that it was 'kinder' to torture someone in this life - and get them to stop being a heretic against the doctrines of the Papacy - rather than have said heretic slip off into hell and be tortured by God for all of eternity. The RCC considered itself as the "nice guy" standing at the gate - even torturing you to get you to not go to the far worse torture of eternal hell.

That kind of thinking would not have been possible if the popes were thinking that all the heretics were going to heaven.

I don't think this present pope has any intention of changing that notion.

I on the other hand would argue that when the protesting so-called "heretics" rejected infant Baptism. Obeyed the Bible 4th commandment rather than the Papacy 3rd commandment in edited form, refused to worship Mary etc - they were rejecting doctrinal errors that would have sent them to the fires of hell - and the inquisition was in fact trying to force them to accept those very false doctrines - which in fact would have lead to their doom.

in Christ,

Bob