The end of 'Christianity lite' is near

Edmonton Sun ^ | December 21, 2003 | TED BYFIELD

[ArrogantBustard]

bowing to the Bishop of Rome.

Still that big hang-up, eh? Your "history" is naught but error, and has been refuted ad nauseaum on the neverending story thread, among other places.

As you perfectly well know, but refuse to acknowledge, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter, as head of the Apostles. As you well know, from the Acts of the Apostles, and several of St. Paul's letters, the Apolstles appointed successors, whose successors many generations removed we know as the Priests and Bishops of what are today referred to as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The relative youth of your errors does not make them any less errors. Martin Luther's spirit of rebellion, to which you appear in some manner to subscribe, has nothing to do with Christ in particular, God in general, or anything remotely Holy. It has more to do with the Prince of this World, and I strongly suggest you abandon it for the Gospel.

Your choice. Choose wisely

[mitch5501]

Amen!

thanks for a great post!

grace and peace to you...God bless...let's roll!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter.***

But what about this?
And when James, Cephas(Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived the grace that was given me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9

Does this mean that the followers of Peter can only go to the Jews?

Was the first Pope perfect?
But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain (men) came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Galatians 2:12

That don't sound like absolute authority to me.

[ArrogantBustard]

Your post is such utter nonsense as not even to rise to the level of being wrong. Wrong is opposite to the Truth; you post is orthogonal to the Truth.

What about it indeed? You set up two strawmen, then knocked them down. BFD. Perfect? Whoever claimed that any Pope is perfect? The Catholic Church makes no such claim. So Peter wasn't the only original Bishop. BFD. Nobody ever claimed he was.

Again: stuff and nonsense. I shan't reply to any more of it.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Touchy, touchy!

[ArrogantBustard]

Whassamatta, boyo? Feeling a little ashamed of the drivel you posted? You should.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I should have been a dentist! I hit a nerve!

[ArrogantBustard]

I studied guys like you in psychology: Delusions of Grandeur. You're pathetic, really, just like the poor schlub who thinks he's Napoleon.

I tried Proverb 26:5 with you, I now see that Proverbs 26:4 is more appropriate.

Go in peace.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

At least I'm not the one squalling like a cat with his tail caught in a ringer!


Have fun.

[mitch5501]

"...how can you know if one comes preaching another gospel if you don't even know the extent of the one you claim to believe"

There's an awfull lot of that going around these days...and at the same time there's so much talk about spiritual warfare...people don't seem to notice that there is only one offensive weapon given to use in that war...and it isn't prayer.

Then again,the fact that..."the Word of God...is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" makes it easier to understand why most would rather do what the carnal mind would have us believe the "work of God" is.There's plenty of folks in churches that do lots of good stuff,but we had better quickly learn to sit still and do "that needfull thing,which shall not be taken away"

I don't exclude myself in that either.

"the truth shall set you free"..."thy word is truth"

grace and peace to you

God bless

[Theo]

Where does the Word say Mary never sinned?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything of the sort. Jesus is my Savior, and He has no "co-mediatrix." I wasn't stating any "true" doctrines; I was stating the historical meaning behind "immaculate conception." You and I have no disagreement, friend.

That said, I am looking forward to seeing this movie! I am looking forward to seeing my faith increase, my love for the One Who lovingly and sacrificially inserted Himself between me and the wrath of God deepen and broaden.

[Theo]

Your post is obviously biblical, and introduced insights I'd not considered before. Of course, anyone whose screen name begins with "Arrogant" -- which could be considered the prideful root of all sin -- should be taken with a grain of salt. Let his unenlightened and ungracious words roll off your back, friend....

[The Grammarian]

Strikes me that this very thing is alive and flourishing here in the suburbs. It's called (among other names) the United Methodist Church.

That depends on where you're at and how lucky you are. There are still Biblical churches in the UMC. I attend one, X pastors one, among others.

[The Grammarian]

They continue "doing" worship as if it were 1953 and not 2003.

Times change, but the church shouldn't. I have yet to find a reason that churches should "do" worship differently than they have for hundreds of years. There are still those of us who worship--and prefer to worship--God through hymnody. I prefer leaving the rock ballads and anthems to secular bands, or at most CCM bands that aren't leading a congregation in worship.

[The Grammarian]

Having read Revelation, I do not see ANYTHING that indicates a coming revival, before the Second Coming of the King of Kings.

I don't recall Revelation mentioning anything about the Evangelical Revival or either of the two Great Awakenings, either. They still happened. As far as Revelation, quite frankly, I see most of it as already being passed.

[xzins]

It is true.

There are rock solid United Methodist Churches out there. You just have to look for them. If the one in your area is liberal, then vote with your feet.

go to: http://www.ucmpage.org

[Theo]

There are still those of us who worship -- and prefer to worship -- God through hymnody

Jesus and the Apostles didn't worship God "through hymnody." Why should you?

It's a long and re-hashed (and frankly boring) discussion, but let it suffice to say that Scripture supports "worshiping" the Lord through various societally contemporary means, from cymbals to stringed instruments to silence to voice to brass instruments. Not to say that any such instrumentation in the Church is "good," just to say that it is permissible and can facilitate "worship," especially among a congregation made up of younger-minded people.

In the end, we Christians can all agree that "worship" (or reverent interaction/response/resonation/communication/engagement) with the Lord is something that happens in the heart, a place where there is no pipe organ, no guitar, no vocal chord....

[Theo]

I wrote: "Not to say that any such instrumentation in the Church is "good" ....

I meant to include the word "necessarily" before "good," making the sentence:

Not to say that any such instrumentation in the Church is *necessarily* "good" ....

In fact, I believe contemporary accompaniment of "worship" *can* be "good."

[Havoc]

Still that big hang-up, eh? Your "history" is naught but error, and has been refuted ad nauseaum on the neverending story thread, among other places.

Right. What history would that be?

As you perfectly well know, but refuse to acknowledge, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter, as head of the Apostles.

Christ said there was no one of the apostles greater than any of the others. That alone strikes down your "claim". It is a claim, not a given. The keys were given to all the apostles, as was the interpretational office of binding and loosing (interpretive, not legislative).

As for a successor - a successor must succeed in spirit, not merely in title. You guys are so caught up on title and your own philosophy that you don't any longer know what they taught - if in fact you ever did. That your churches could have binding and loosing so well misunderstood begs the imagination for any excuse.

The relative youth of your errors does not make them any less errors. Martin Luther's spirit of rebellion, to which you appear in some manner to subscribe, has nothing to do with Christ in particular, God in general, or anything remotely Holy. It has more to do with the Prince of this World, and I strongly suggest you abandon it for the Gospel.

You speak to me as though you have a clue either about Luther or about me. You appear to have neither. I'm not a protestant. And Luther wasn't given to a spirit of rebellion, the church was. Luther caved and didn't have the audacity nor the purpose of spirit to carry through properly with what he started. The errors of the protestants are as much his fault as that of Catholicism.

And finally, I'v followed scripture. And that is what turns so many of you rabidly against the message I preach. You are comfortable in your philosophy and would rather follow it than scripture. Anytime scripture puts a kink in your plans you denounce it as being but one input among many. That may work in philosophy and religianity; but it isn't Christianity and it don't work with God. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've no horse in the race you choose. My only concern is for souls and truth. I don't sell a church title or beg athority over anyone. I merely present the gospel. A stumbling block to you, but for us, righteousness.

[Havoc]

Yep, has been for a long time. If we can tell the wheat from the chaff by what they teach, imagine God's dismay.
It's a real downer to listen to some of these guys sometimes. Not just because they speak that which God never spoke and claim it his; but, because they are so blind they may never come to the truth. Not my concern, it's gotta fit God's plan somewhere; but, it is nonetheless a shame.

Grace and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ.