Sure, a pastor could [preach for sexual impropriety, for example], but that would just make him an apostate. [...] There's nothing to stop a priest from doing exactly the same thing. He just couldn't call it a Roman Catholic Church
The difference is, that church would still be commonly known as "protestant", perhaps with the adjective like unaffiliated, non-credal, or what have you. This is perhaps the liability that comes with being called "protestant", meaning "anything not Catholic". I would agree that the situation is exactly symmetrical for credal Protestant churches, such as Presbyterian or Lutheran, or Anglican. You understand what I am driving at? There is a general toothpaste-out-of-tube situation here, once personal interpretation of the scripture becomes sufficient reason to teach others in a church setting.
I wonder what Biblical "sexual perversion" would be to a homosexual.
It is on a forum that makes searches difficult, so I cannot show it, but the general line was that the most forceful condemnations of homosexuality we both could find were in terms of "lying with man as with women" and he argued, that condemned bi-sexuality only. Silly, I agree.
During physical life, "eternal life" only lasts until the next mortal sin.
Well, sure. This is like saying that a Honda runs forever unless you wreck it. It is a valid statement about an undestructible (hyperbolically, in that case) motor, is it not? Christ used the term in the same conditional sense, e.g when He said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), right when he devotes several passages to eternal life.
This is talking about the end times, and there will be MANY first and only time occurrences. I don't think this can be fairly used to say it has been happening all along.
The delivery of the prayers of the saints (Apoc. 5:8, 8:3-4) might be at the end of time, but what makes you conclude the subjects of these prayers are unrelated to the present events? It is the present being judged, after all.
This is talking about the memory of their examples, not that they were literally floating around them right there. If they were literally "surrounded" then that would mean they were in the earthly presence of spirits
This is the passage. It is about the present struggle of the faithful, and it speaks of the "witnesses" that relieve our sin constantly; yes, the Church teaches that we are in their presence all the time:
1 And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: 2 Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. 4 For you have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: 5 And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. 6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline(Hebrews 12)
There is NOTHING in the Hebrews passage about the great cloud of witnesses to even suggest that they were/are
ANYTHING
but
observers . . .
Many folks have had visions/dreams of such a cloud of witnesses in stadia, as it were--but the playing field was some scene or scenes from earth.
They had the impression of the heavenly observers sort of rooting for the earthly residents who were believers etc. But not that they were involved in the battle. There was some sort of detachment that indicated otherwise, IIRC.
Wow! You're a regular me. :) Good to see you again.
FK: "I wonder what Biblical "sexual perversion" would be to a homosexual."
... but the general line was that the most forceful condemnations of homosexuality we both could find were in terms of "lying with man as with women" and he argued, that condemned bi-sexuality only. Silly, I agree.
That's interesting since the L's and the G's and the B's and the T's all seem so unified and junk. It's funny that they would throw some of their own under the bus to justify their Christianity. :)
FK: "During physical life, "eternal life" only lasts until the next mortal sin."
Well, sure. This is like saying that a Honda runs forever unless you wreck it. It is a valid statement about an indestructible (hyperbolically, in that case) motor, is it not?
I don't think so. There is a big difference between a motor and the vehicle surrounding it. If God gave me an indestructible motor, it would remain in tact no matter how many accidents it was in. The important point is that God would NOT tell me "Here is a car that runs forever". That would be very misleading since God could very well give me such a car. If only the motor was meant to be indestructible, then that's what He would say. I think it is the same with "eternal life". If He really meant "eternal life with a ton of strings and conditions attached" then He would have said so. I don't think He did.
[continuing:] Christ used the term in the same conditional sense, e.g when He said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), right when he devotes several passages to eternal life.
As above, I see this as two different things. It seems to me that you are building in an entirely new level of condition that I do not see there. The verse by itself says that if you take Christ inside yourself, i.e. accept Him, that you will have life in you. It does not add a further condition that you will lose that life if you do not do a, b, and c. Using the word "eternal" here would be like referring to the whole car when only the motor was intended. I don't think God did that. If He really meant only temporary life, or a "chance" for eternal life, then I think that concept would be clear enough in scripture. I know there are a few verses that "sound" like one can lose his salvation, but the whole weight of scripture is squarely on one side, IMO.
The delivery of the prayers of the saints (Apoc. 5:8, 8:3-4) might be at the end of time, but what makes you conclude the subjects of these prayers are unrelated to the present events? It is the present being judged, after all.
While I can see why you interpret these verses the way you do, I see it a little different. (Shock! :) I don't see the angel and the elders as actually having offered the prayers, but only the incense. The incense represents the prayers, but are not the prayers themselves. The parallel is to a regular Temple service, wherein the priest would offer incense while the people prayed (directly) to God.