Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It’s REPLACEMENTARIANISM that is hard to digest for many of us. We’ve seen the destructive results, some even tasted the product in past religious ‘incarnations,’ we’ve searched the Scriptures, we’ve seen the dreadful results, and we found the truth of the better pastures much more Scriptural and fruitful for The Kingdom. We’re just trying to save others the pain we’ve observed so much of for such a long time by comparing Scripture with Scripture and believing the whole counsel of God in the whole of Scripture. It’s a frightful thing to see the deadliness of so much REPLACEMENTARIANISM unnecessarily result in too many sliding into hell unwittingly and ignorantly because of it.
LOL.
Given our angelic dispositions and perspectives, I thought we were meeting on the head of a pin in the local Bernina shop.
And after the social gospel, two world wars, the atomic bomb, communist purges and Pol Pot, post-mils decided that maybe the world wasn’t getting better as fast as they thought so now it’s back to the secret yeast thing.
And the amils still haven’t come up with a good reason for the sudden inbreaking of the triumphal Christ if Satan has been locked up and everything is just coasting along. What’s the point?
= = =
Be careful blue-duncan . . . some REPLACEMENTARIANS may choke on so much truth in one post! LOL.
That's the ultimate narcissism (self-love), arrogance and pride, FK, because then one appoints himself as the sole arbiter of what is true and what is false.
What you are saying is what Gnostic heresy is all about! The inner, secret knowledge revealed only to you by God. That's not how God's Church was established.
Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
I know you give me credit, FK, and no i didn't think you were mocking me. :)
The real truth of Dispensationlism lies in the difference between the Church and Israel.
That the promises made to Israel are not made to the Church.
That is the essential point that is lacking in false views of dispensationalism such as the 'progressive' one.
Two returns of Christ are mentioned in the scriptures, one for His Church (1Thess.4) and one coming back with His Church (Rev.19) to set up the Davidic Kingdom which has yet to happen.
Any escatological view that ignores that fact is simply rejecting clear scripture on the subject.
Opinions are cheap, but the proof lies in the scripture.
The third and clearly contextual position is that the water here is a reference to physical birth. Any parent knows tht a baby is born in a sack of water (amniotic fluid) which breaks just prior to delivery....The immediate context following clearly contrasts physical birth from spiritual birth....(Understanding the Bible, David Sorenson, Northstar Ministries, 2005)
What Christ is not referring to is water Baptism, which never saved anyone (1Pet.3:21)
Is Sorensen scripture, and how much did you pay for his book?
1 Peter 3:21 says: “baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also”. You cannot be taken seriously, sorry.
You consider a person who condemns an entire Christian community as spiritually dead or calling them a cult to be stable and learned? And continues to defend that position? You are right, you haven't been following the conversation.
I called your church spiritually dead because it teaches a false Gospel, mixing faith and works.
Paul stated that if an angel from heaven taught such a doctrine, he should be called accursed.
Moreover, your 'community' has put a curse on everyone who did not accept your views on almost everything at Trent,
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.htmlAs for being a cult, I stated that your method of bible interpretation was 'cult like' rejecting clear scripture that undermines your own 'pet' scriptures, just as any cult would do.
So get the facts right.
Regards
Likewise.
No, but that makes three commentaries that have stated the view that the scripture teaches water refers to the physical birth, not baptismal regeneration.
It is a multi-volumne commentary, not a single book.
1 Peter 3:21 says: “baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also”. You cannot be taken seriously, sorry.
And what part of 'figure' do you have a hard time understanding?
What cannot be taken seriously are the Roman Catholics on these threads who cannot handle clear scripture.
You guys get totally lost when you cannot make your final appeals to some Church Father, Council of Papal decree.
Any escatological view that ignores that fact is simply rejecting clear scripture on the subject.
It boggles my mind that anyone could consider themselves to be Bible believing Christians and FAIL SO UTTERLY to comprehend those simple facts.
I sure strongly agree with you.
I repeat, Scriptures themselves say that Paul can be difficult to understand. Do you discount what the Bible says? I am not surprised...
And once again, you dodge the question.
For your view to be right, Paul would have say somewhere that eternal salvation comes by faith and works.
I note that you cannot find such a passage.
As for some things being difficult in Paul to understand, Peter was not referring to salvation by faith alone, since he preached the same Gospel in Acts 15.
'but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved as they'(vs.11).
'Pope' Peter forget to mention the works part 'necessary' for salvation.
What he stated that it was by grace one was saved and if it is by grace, then it must be by faith and not of works (Rom.4:3-4, 11:6)
What Peter was referring to that was difficult in Paul's writings were the mystery of the one body, Jew and Gentile, revealed only to Paul (Eph.3) which Peter had a hard time with (Gal.2).
So, once again, like a cult, you avoid actually dealing with anything Paul said regarding works not being part of eternal salvation using the dodge that Paul is too hard to understand.
Nowhere does James say that saved is referring to eternal salvation. You are reading into it what you want. Eternal salvation is not the issue being discussed in James 2, what is is faith being seen and producing fruit.
Faith without works is dead. That has nothing to do with eternal salvation? Wow... I hadn't realized that the spiritually dead will be going to heaven.
Faith without works is a dead faith.
Salvation is an event not a process.
Your view on Sanctification is in error.
A believer who does not produce fruit has a dead faith and thus is removed from this temporal life, but remains spiritually alive.
Stop double talking.
Jn. 15:2 is speaking of taking away the physical life of the believer if he doesn't produce fruit. If he does produce fruit, he is 'pruned' to produce more.
Friend, you are mistaken again. Being cut from the vine does not talk about being killed physically. Those that wither from the vine because they have been cut off die physically? And those who remain on the vine do NOT die physically? You are clearly incorrect. I know many devout Catholics and Protestants who died. Does their physical death mean that they were cut off from Christ? See where your eigesis takes us?
And you reject the context of the chapter which is dealing with fruit bearing-friend.
Christ says very clearly that if one does not bear fruit he is removed and the others are 'pruned' that is they continue to grow.
So stop acting like you don't know what I am talking about.
Dying is not the issue, it is when one dies and if one does not produce fruit for Christ, that believer is judged and taken home early.
Sola Fide is found in the scripture and is compared by comparing scripture with scripture.
I respectfully disagree with you.
You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God and it is He whom you are going to give an account for when you see Him at the Great White Throne Judgement.
So what part of Paul do you not understand when he says we are saved by grace, through faith not of works?
You are confused on what Paul means when he says "works". Read Romans 4:4 - it tells us what Paul means by "works". He is saying we cannot earn salvation. No "work" can force God to pay us back. Thus, salvation is a gift given. It is not earned. Yet, without love, we are not saved, because we have dead faith. Thus, as Paul says, faith without love is worthless - or, as James said - faith without works is dead.
faith without love is dead, but that has nothing to do with salvation, that has to do with Christian growth.
Now,the works that Paul is referring to is anything that man can claim credit for doing that he thinks is necessary for salvation, like taking 'sacraments'.
One can have such a dead faith and still be saved as shown in 1Tim.2:11.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I don't see it there, ftd.
excuse me, I meant 2Tim.2:13.
If we believe not, ye he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself
Clear enough?
One can have a dead faith and still be saved.
The greatest love I can show you is to tell you the true Gospel so you will be saved and not spend eternity in hell.
By YOUR idea of being saved, I am already saved. Thanks for your concern, but by Protestant standards, I am "once saved, always saved". According to your standards, then, it shouldn't matter WHAT I do AFTER that! I can even become Catholic, because I am OSAS! Yippie!!! Whoopie, I got my bus ticket! AMEN!
Actually, if you have accepted Christ by faith alone, that is true.
But that means you are rejecting what the Roman Catholic Church says about salvation.
So which is it?
I gave you the facts and did not attack you personally.
I see your name-calling as a personal attack. Yet, after three posts, no apologies. That says a mountain about how much "faith" you have. It is a dead faith because it has no works of love.
And I see your evasion and doubletalk as intellectually dishonest.
Charity...rejoiceth in the truth.
I called you no names, I dealt with what you and your Church believes and teaches.
Now if you have indeed believed as the Bible teaches (faith alone) then your Roman Catholic Church has put an anathama on you. So if you now believe what the RCC teaches instead of what the Bible does, you better start saying alot of Hail Mary's
Regards
Likewise.
Amen.
Thank you.
Also, Margret Macdonald did not have visions of a pre-tribulation rapture, but rather a posttrib one. Ryrie states,
As for the very young and chronically ill Margaret Macdonald, we can only truthfully label her as a 'confused rapturist' with elements of partial rapturism, posttribulationism, perhaps midtribulationalism, but never pretribulationism' ( Charles C.Ryrie, What we Should Know About the Rapture, p.72, cited in The Orgins of Dispensationalism, The Darby Factor, Larry V. Crutchfield, p.191)
She was not seeing signs of the pre-tribulaton, but had visions of different rapture scenerios.
As for you citation of the Jesuit, your article states that he also was not Pre-tribulation
He did not espouse a pre-trib rapture, as has been claimed.
As for Irving,
It is clear, then, unlike Darby, the Irvingites did not teach the imminency of Christ's return, nor that Daniel's sevenieth week (the Tribulation period) would occur between the Rapture and second coming (The Origins of Dispensationalism, The Darby Factor, Larry V. Crutchfield, pg.189)
Crutchfield then goes on to state that,
That Darby himself claimed no source for the doctrine, other than Scripture, is beyond question....In the final analysis, the question of Darby's source for the Rapture doctrine comes to rest more on the development of his own theology and exposition of Scripture than on any superficial similarities to the position of others. (Ibid, p.191)
So the real issue is 'what saith the Scriptures'
These are lovely worship songs. I have sung them all. I love to sing HIS praises.
It is indeed amazing how clear scripture is when it is allowed to speak for itself and one does not read something into it.
Born once-die twice
Born twice-die once.
And what’s wrong with Finney? He was one of the true greats. Many good things happened in our area because of Finney.
Sure... “Water” is “womb”, “baptism saves” is “baptism doesn’t save”, “not by faith alone are you saved” is “saved by faith alone”... Read more Sorenson, looks like a fun book.
Alex : "Demonstrably false. As a parent, I am not obligated in any way by my child's behavior; I choose, however, to match my rewards and punishments to what the child actually does, because I love my child. There is no mystery in this."
Your comparison doesn't work because you are a flawed human (no offense :) and are capable of being inconsistent (partial), or even not keeping your word. Does God do that? The Bible gives us specific promises as to how salvation works. We believe it is by grace through faith, and you say it is by works and the Church. If God is impartial, then there must be some minimum number of works (or type) that are necessary to OBLIGATE God to save us, along with the Church. If you say "no", then that only leaves God being partial, AND/OR God not keeping His word.
By the way, Noah and his family were not saved by getting in the water.
They were saved by getting in the Ark (a type of Christ).
Those who got in the water died and that is why water represents the grave (Rom.6:3-4), in the Baptism ordinance.
Water never regenerates anyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.