They know they are “already adopted and heirs” because they honestly test themselves per Paul’s instructions, and find themselves compliant and obedient. And maybe Jesus did what he said he would do in John 14:21.
And it seems to me that you disbelieve this, I don’t know why:
Well, that’s your interpretation. Unfortunately, there is no verse where Jesus is saying “blessed are those who are rich”.
Same song, verse 47.
I agree. You must be confusing me with someone else - my profile doesn’t make the claim that “evolution” is contradicted by the fossil record.
I’m still not sure what you mean by this comment.
Who would want to join a religion that requires everyone to live in abject poverty? That sounds like a recipe for misery, not happiness!
“the truth will set you free” … to live in the gutter with the rats and cockroaches!
Some Darwinists get a bit upset whenever someone challenges their belief system.
Without specifying your private definition of the word “Darwinism” you cannot expect people to understand what you say in your profile in any other way. To be sure the word is typically used in the manner of a religious pejorative to imply evolution is some kind of religion or philosophy rather than the theoretical aspect of the biological sciences. It also often serves as an excuse for sidestepping the methods of science in order to use religious/philosophical methods of textual criticism instead.
Of course it is only reasonable to accept a person’s profile. But then it is also only reasonable to accept the results of the written procedures of science which give the same result no matter what you want or believe.
I think @mitchellmckain was probably noticing what you wrote in post 411 above:
…when he noted that you were rejecting evolution. You might make the distinction between “change over time” and common ancestry, but you should note that the commonly accepted meaning associated with evolution (of the biological sort) includes common ancestry. Some creationists can labor to desperately maintain an air-tight seal between what they will then call ‘microevolution’ and the ever-so-feared ‘macroevolution’. And perhaps those labels are still necessary for you then if you want to avoid misunderstanding. It sounds to me like your claim is that the fossil record doesn’t support common ancestry in its fullest sense. And that claim is one that many here will be happy to challenge.
I’m sorry, but after thinking things trough, I don’t find your answer satisfactory. Out of context or not, it still says what it says. It doesn’t go to any specifics like, the greedy or those who got rich trough exploitation, or even those who value material goods too high. It just says “woe to the rich”. I’m not trying to be difficult here, I find this genuinely disturbing. So if I’m rich, then automatically I’m a “bad Christian”? And let’s not forget that poverty is terrible, it is an evil in itself, and yet if we are to take these words seriously, we shouldn’t try to prosper? How can anyone help others, when they need to work 3 jobs and still can hardly pay rent? Also I find that those badmouthing rich people are usually just jealous… Even more disturbing that Jesus could be saying nonsense and be spiteful against anyone
Well, my guess is that most of people just ignored it(if it is true, I haven’t got enough knowledge to say for sure and I keep hearing conflicting views all the time). Like you’re also not suppose to gamble, charge interest rates and be modest, yet majority of Christians throughout history were quite content to simply ignore these rules.
The Pharisees, who morphed into rabbinical Judaism, were the legalists who favored the letter over the spirit of the Law. Jesus never lost an argument with them. I shouldn’t say “never.”
Has anyone read where Jesus’ loses an argument with the Pharisees?
Please let me know the chapter and verses.
The American revolution was not a mob action. It was quite a civilized reaction to taxation without representation which is tyranny. Luckily many learned men ran the colonies and wrote our founding documents.
Well, that is what it was once we won. I suppose history would read differently had we not. Maybe we would have ultimately wound up in the same place. It seems to have worked out for Canada.
Discipline and self-sacrifice win wars, not mobs or hypotheticals.
AND it also says…
“Woe to you that laugh now”
“Woe to you, when all men speak well of you”
Do you find that genuinely disturbing?
Do you think that means if you laugh or if men speak well of you then you must be a bad Christian?
If so, then you want the text to be completely absurd. Do you also read John 6 as promoting cannibalism?
If not, then how do you justify picking out the one on being rich so selectively? (and BTW I am below the poverty line myself so this has nothing to do with being rich myself)
Answer these questions before you babble about not finding my answer satisfactory because if you do not answer them, then I certainly will not find YOUR answer satisfactory.
And although I am below the poverty line, I am neither miserable NOR self righteous. I don’t think my poverty makes me a better Christian or earns me squat. I am just not that into money and what it can buy. Getting by (without health insurance to be sure) is quite enough for me. And I think looking down on people because they want to do the work for such money is beyond ridiculous. Their work deserves appreciation and compensation! Of course, you could argue that this poverty line is an absurd definition of poor and that anybody who lives in this country is rich compared to most of the world and I would accept that. How can you even be in this forum if you are truly poor? I guess Americans and the people here simply cannot be good Christians any more than those who are respectable or who laugh. LOL (and no doubt the parable of the sower is nothing but agricultural wisdom 
)
This can be easily interpreted as being linked to being rich, you laugh because your wealth makes you happy, and it’s universally known fact that money makes people treat you better and take you seriously, so that’s the other thing(men speak well of you). Similarly “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. 22 hunger and weeping obviously goes hand in hand with poverty, doesn’t it?
And no, I don’t want the text to be absurd, can’t you see I want the opposite?
You express your own doubts about whether you are actually poor or not yourself… And yes, measuring poverty like that is absurd as it would require same cost of living everywhere(apparently they allow you extra in Alaska and Hawaii) and people having exactly same needs and also same skills and knowledge about managing money.
So I still stand by my views about poverty, and I still find it slightly disturbing that Jesus would somehow promote that.
Are these really such good analogies? Parable of the sower is obviously that, a parable. As to John 6… Jesus clearly cannot mean that literally as well, there wouldn’t be enough to go around for everyone! And don’t say it was all obvious to ancient Jews because Him saying that made a lot of disciples turn their backs and unfollow.
So when Jesus promises the poor they will be rewarded in heaven and the hungry will be satisfied, is this some kind of sophisticated metaphor too?
Lots of things in the Bible can easily be interpreted in very disturbing ways to support all kinds of evil. That is why I think the notion that the Bible is infallible is downright preposterous. I don’t see anything supporting your interpretation except these very dubious premises of yours. People laugh and are thought well of when they have wealth? Really??? I see very little evidence of that, and much more to the contrary. Instead I see very good reason (both in life and in the text) to see this as all being about the temporary and superficial nature of good fortune, happiness, and respectability. It is right there in the consequences which follow.
Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger.
Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
But are not the other two different? Yes but there is a common thread and pattern connected to the context.
“Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. 22 “Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. 24 “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. 25 “Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. “Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. 26 “Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
The common thread is things change and that points to a message of hope, warning and looking to the future. One doesn’t speak in this way to get people to accept the way things are and nor does it make sense to understand this as judgement when it is immediately followed by a warning against judgement. How then are we to respond to such a message except to prepare for the future. And thus it is one thing to be miserly rich and quite another to use your resources to make the world a better place. If you are trying to understand this in a way consistent with how Jesus speaks elsewhere then it would be for those-who-have to be aware of and consider those-who-have-not, for you can easily be one of the latter yourself in no time.
They are more extreme but consider the context. After the parable of the sower, that is when the disciples ask Jesus why He speaks in parables, to which Jesus says that people will close their eyes, ears, and mind refusing to hear what is meant. And in John 6, the people who heard him couldn’t get past the simplistic literal meaning of what He said. All analogies are a matter of similarities and differences and yes I do see similarities with what is said in Luke 6 from taking what He says in too simplistic a manner contradicting the context.
P.S. On the link between wealth and happiness…
Clearly a link has been found between the two. A google search will easily bring up studies where this link has been demonstrated.
On the other hand, I was reading this website where it was found that that a good portion of the link between wealth and happiness was in how much of that wealth was spent on other people.
Sorry if I’m still confused about what you believe, but what happens if those who are “already adopted and heirs” test themselves at some latter time and find they are no longer “compliant and obedient”? Do they lose their status as “adopted and heirs”?
Sounds like the creationist argument that Jesus never said all life on earth evolved from common ancestors… therefore according to Jesus this must be false. We can multiply this stupidity ad-absurdum… Jesus never said the earth is round therefore according to Jesus this must be false… blah… blah… blah…
There is no need to say blessed are those who are rich… since they experience their blessing for themselves – no more than there is a need to say blessed are those who are full.
This caused me to trace back the discussion between Edgar and Dale… and thus to put likes on a few of Edgars posts. Looks to me like Edgar really has Dale up against the wall on this one. LOL Many very devout Christians have changed their mind becoming atheists and find this dogma of OSAS particularly nasty in the way people use it to say that their whole Christian experience before abandoning it must not have been real. It reminds me of a similar irrationality I often have heard from atheists claiming that atheists who convert to Christianity must not have really been atheists. …oh brother… To me it looks like clear evidence of how the same irrationality quite often transcends the theist/atheist barrier.
‘LOL’, to quote @mitchellmckain. There is no end to “what if” hypothetical arguments.
Apparently neither of you understand about changed hearts, adoption or being birthed, nor do you believe this (never mind the rest of the list):
Edgar wrote:
“Sorry if I’m still confused about what you believe, but what happens if those who are “already adopted and heirs” test themselves at some latter time and find they are no longer “compliant and obedient”? Do they lose their status as “adopted and heirs”?”
“For when men have once been enlightened, when they have had a taste of the heavenly gift and a share in the Holy Spirit, when they have experienced the goodness of God’s word and the spiritual energies of the world to come, and after all this have fallen away, it is impossible to bring them to repentance; for with their own hands they are crucifying the Son of God and making mockery of his death.”
Hebrews 6:4-7
Unfortunately, a response like this looks suspiciously like evasion. I thought my “hypothetical” was a reasonable question - I mean, it is very common for believers to fall away and become no longer “compliant and obedient”. Why don’t you want to discuss this reality?
At what point does a believer become one of the “adopted and heirs”? Is it after one day of being “compliant and obedient”? One week? If not, when, exactly? If you yourself are one of the “adopted and heirs”, you should know.
Now here’s a really easy question for you: Do you subscribe to the doctrine of OSAS?
Perhaps so … which is why I need you to teach me, but you seem very reluctant to discuss your doctrine.
Does this verse mean that everyone whom God “began a good work in” will get to Heaven? If so, why does Jesus say some will “believe for a while” and then “fall away” (Luke 8:13)?
Why does Jesus disown certain believers who performed supernatural feats in his name (Matt 7:21-23)?
Why does the NT repeatedly describe eternal life as a “hope” and not as a certainty?
Why does Paul urge believers to have “perseverance” to finish the “race” (Heb 12:1), which he didn’t consider over until close to his death?
Thanks for the feedback. I recently amended my profile and I hope it makes my position clearer.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.