Mudcat

To the original post... if anyone here still remembers it. The last few pages look a bit derailed. Anyways. I believe as other have said, man and woman are made in God's image. It is not like we can disengender God because he made man and woman in his image. It's not like God places us having a specific knowledge of what "in his image" actually meant as something that endangers our salvation. If we afford no literary license, then every male should exist as one man but in three persons.... at least if we are Trinitarians. I really don't see what the fuss is about.

The reason they use it, is to seek validation. Essentially this verse could support their practices of proxy baptisms. I make no pretense to know what to make of the verse. It is rather enigmatic. There is no other scripture in the Bible that is relevant to their practice and I am uncertain as to if this one is or isn't. Regardless, I believe theirs is an attempt to justify the unorthodox through scripture. The difficulty it makes from a standpoint of Christian apologetics, is that this is the only verse we have that relates to the topic and most Christians view it as disregardfully inexplicable. You can't prop up a table on one leg... can you? Eventually the early church pointed towards the heresy of such. But since these statements of heresy are not in the Biblical canon, they are difficult to assert with effect. I'll stop blathering now.

I suppose a literal reading of the text would to farcical. I think it means, don't share your most personal feelings with a bunch of idiots, because they will use it against you.

Hey Justin, I might be inclined to agree that exactly 'when' God created the Angels might be irrelevant. My guess, would be that he made them one at time and I think it's quite possible Angels as a species, they may have existed before mankind... but who knows. My only evidence would be that Satan appears on Earth just shortly after creation, so this 1/3rd of the host that followed him in his fall must have existed prior to that point as well. Though, I suppose God could have created a host of angels during this creation episode and a third immediately decided to reject him in a quick fashion. However the fact that God created another species that are able to communicate with him and apparently have the ability to make choices that can change their relationship with God (i.e. Satan and a third of the host chose against God). I think it gives us some insight into the fact that God is not limited to humanity in his creation of intelligent life.

I voted other. I don't think we have a clear picture. For example, From what I can gather, the term Heaven is related to the atmosphere that is in between the sea and the clouds. This is obviously contrary to my concept of Heaven or Heavens. I suppose in many ways I am not much a literalist of the Genesis account, and view it more of an oral history that was finally recorded by Moses. I don't want to say what was recorded wasn't true, rather what was recorded was given through a much different lens of perception than we have at present.

Nebula, if I tell you I will always respond to every post you make. Then I don't respond to a post you made... I lied to you. Granted Peter seemed rather impetuous at times. It is my observation that many of the impetuous people I know will tell you something and then they wont fulfill. In short they lie. Perhaps so, I think what is focal is not so much what Peter did or did not interpret from Christ's statement. Rather what was Christ's intent in making the statement. I like the way you put that. Given the propensity for roosters to crow I will weigh that a bit carefully, but I do like it.

Well I think the point I am driving at isn't that Peter is the foundation, rather Christ is, however had the Gospel not been preached beyond his sacrifice through Peter, Paul, etc.. then it would have been a fruitless work. Christ said that those who came behind him would do greater works than he did. I don't think this is in regards to greater in quality, but greater in quantity. If Peter wasn't a necessary component to God's plan, Christ would have chosen another. BTW... This concept I am discussing, I don't hold as doctrine so I don't plan getting on a soap box about it. However, I hope you and the other posters don't mind me taking the posited argument to its conclusion to see where all the holes in it are. Yes, I see your point. Perhaps command is to harsh a word. To articulate how I am thinking of it. Maybe it was more like, "There will come in the near future Peter, when you will deny me. Its ok." In regards to it being against his nature, I might put it in the same category as Christ healing a man and then telling him to keep quiet about who healed him. Given the close proximity he was to the Savior during the surrounding events, its quite possible his admission of being an apostle may have meant there 4 crosses on Golgotha not 3. Given the importance of the transmission of the Gospel that would proceed his death, I think taking an effort to protect Peter here, might have been a possible motivation. I'm not saying your statement here is implausible. In fact it is likely the case. If we take Christ's statement as prophetic rather than imperative, what is the benefit to Peter for the statement? If we take it as prophecy, then it served to make a liar of Peter. What do you think the underlying message of Christ telling a person they will fail him in advance is?

There was not a single one of His followers who showed any indication that they understood the need for Jesus to be arrested, tried, and put to death. And this includes Peter. If he accepted Christ at His own words, he would not have protested, saying that he would die with Jesus, nor would he have drawn his sword in the Garden. I would submit this in evidence to the contrary. Joh 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Ok, put yourself in Peter's shoes. Christ has told him, the he will deny Christ before morning. Peter runs into a situation where the choice to deny Christ is put before him. What would you do?

Its been a bit since my last post, but Nebula, I must say you always have a way of distinctly supporting your position. However your position resides upon the presupposition that Peter fell into one specific camp. Isn't it possible that Peter might have actually accepted Christ at his own words and divorced himself of any preconceptions? This concept of mine is a bit of an offshoot. One would think those who lean heavily upon apostolic authority in this present day would have gravitated to such a position and yet even there we don't see the case. There is no doubt I am presenting a perspective that strays from the norm. But does it stray from Scripture?

Hey Ruck1b! Thanks for the response. For the record, I am just exploring the issue. However, as you pointed out... Peter whacked a soldiers ear off in a posse full of Romans. Do you think fear of death was on his mind? I don't. Yet in these instances or denial, fear seems to be his motivator and granted given the situation, Peter's admission of Christ could have brought him dire consequences. However, a "fearful" Peter doesn't fit his modus operandi. Seems the foundation of the Church was first built upon by Peter's confession. Isn't it possible that Christ chose to command Peter to protect such an endeavor. What do you think? Respectfully, Mudcat

I was thinking about this today and wanted to posit it here. I am not sure if its been discussed before, but I am curious to see what posters think about this? Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that. However, after Christ was taken, the opportunity arose in which Peter could have chosen to admit he knew Christ or instead, he could deny him. We all know what Peter chose to do, but given his prior statements of his loyalty to Christ, we could draw a couple of conclusions. Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to. In one respect, Peter failed to some degree. In another respect, Peter was only doing as he was commanded. We can speculate as to what would have been the outcome if Peter had not denied Christ, no one could be certain as to what would happen in that case. Hypothetically speaking, lets say had he not denied Christ, and this action would have been detrimental to his person,... if that was the case, then could Christ's statement been a command to Peter, for Peter's sake, that Peter himself ruefully followed through with? Rather than a prophecy of Peter's impending failure. Don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but if you have a thought on the matter, I'd like to hear it. Mudcat

Either God is responsible for evil or he isn't. I for one think he is responsible for it. But apparently its a (sorry for the bad pun)necessary evil, and he rectifies it at judgment.

And if they are interpreted as such, this means that if a person walks away they can't come back even if they want to do so Hey EricH, I agree with what you just said in the area I bolded. As to the rest of your statement, I think we would stretching the text to say that even if they wanted to they couldn't. Salvation is a response to a call from the Holy Spirit. I am injecting my own personal thoughts on the matter...but I think it simply means that if you reject God after accepting him, he will stop calling after you. Respectfully, Mudcat But it does not say that. it says that it is impossible for them to be renewed. If it is impossible, that would say to me that it is not possible in any circumstances (including if they wanted to do so). The word for impossible comes from the greek word adunatos whcih means to lack the power. Hey EricH, I am not disagreeing with you at all. I agree that it is impossible. I am with you 100%. I suppose I could have articulated my thought better. However, it seemed you were saying that the person could decide later to want to be saved but could not. I am just looking at it from a different angle is all. It would be impossible for that person to regain their salvation because they would not be called by the Holy Spirit to do so. In short, it would be impossible because they would not be renewed unto repentance, again. This renewing is the work of God, not the work of man. Sorry for the confusion, and we may still not see eye to eye on this..... I dunno. Mudcat

And if they are interpreted as such, this means that if a person walks away they can't come back even if they want to do so Hey EricH, I agree with what you just said in the area I bolded. As to the rest of your statement, I think we would stretching the text to say that even if they wanted to they couldn't. Salvation is a response to a call from the Holy Spirit. I am injecting my own personal thoughts on the matter...but I think it simply means that if you reject God after accepting him, he will stop calling after you. Respectfully, Mudcat

I've discussed this one before Jeff. But I will assert to you, that if we take the Scripture at face value, it would difficult to walk away from such a reading without an understanding that it is possible to reject the Christ's work for us after we have accepted it. The verses you cited from Hebrews are IMO the strongest case for a 'conditional' security believer. Respectfully, Mudcat