Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Cronos
>>Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation of "personal relationship"<<

I am sorry you don’t understand. That simple fact is clear evidence that you don’t understand the close relationship we who put our faith in Jesus can have, indeed are expected to have, with a gracious and loving God.

Firstly I would simply suggest you avail yourself of Jesus presence and ask Him. I will let a passage from a book by Franz Theremin to give you an idea from which you can investigate.

Franz Theremin (1780-1846) in his book The Confession of Adalbert (1828) One of the key scenes occurs in Letter #35 (pp. 191- 204), where he corresponds with his spiritual adviser (Steindorf) about the nature of the Christian’s encounter with Jesus.

Has not Christ promised to be with us, even till the end of the world; and to be in the midst of us when two or three are assembled in his name? And after such promises, shall we consider him as at a distance, or as near and present? Has not Christ promised that he will come with the Father and take up his abode with those that love him; and may I not speak of holding converse with him, when he has spoken of a dwelling in us, which implies something infinitely more and a connection much more close and intimate? Did not the Apostle hold such a converse with him, when he besought him to take away the thorn in the flesh, under which he was suffering, and was immediately enjoined by the Lord to let his grace suffice him? Did he not necessarily hold such a converse with him, in order to be able to say, ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me?’ Does he not enjoin the maintenance of this fellowship with Christ upon those to whom he wrote, when he says, “Your life is hid with Christ in God?” And does the beloved disciple, who lay upon the bosom of Jesus, not only whilst the latter sojourned here upon earth, but also after he had departed hence — does John intend anything else when he represents the Lord as knocking at the door, ready, if any one open it, to enter in and sup with him?”

>> where is that per sola scriptura?<<

Don’t start the nonsense with sola scriptura as if it’s solo scriptura. Sola scriptura simply means that if it can not be verified by scripture it is not to be taken as doctrine. Trying to pervert the meaning is demeaning to the accuser.

662 posted on 05/24/2011 11:25:15 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear
"Sola scriptura simply means that if it can not be verified by scripture it is not to be taken as doctrine."

HERE

663 posted on 05/24/2011 11:27:50 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("I've studied prophecy 30 years" usually means "I have everything Hal Lindsay ever 'wrote'." ~ LNF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear; Matchett-PI
Cronos: Where exactly is that in the Bible? This is never taught from scripture, yet parroted by many. While the Bible says that (Matt. 1:21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins, Acts 4:12 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.) Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation of "personal relationship" -- where is that per sola scriptura?

And you reply back with proof that is NOT in the Bible -- I thought you were a Bible ALONE guy?

Where's the proof IN the Bible for your "God is my bosom buddy" kind of statement?

665 posted on 05/24/2011 11:33:47 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear; Matchett-PI
CB: "Sola scriptura simply means that if it can not be verified by scripture it is not to be taken as doctrine."

Oohh... really -- so then why do you not accept the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or Baptism for the Remission of Sins?

Lutherans hold to this too -- why don't you?

666 posted on 05/24/2011 11:35:03 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear
INDEED.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE

OF THE CROSS AND THE PRICELESS UNFATHOMABLE DEATH OF THE GOD WHO LOVES US ON THAT CROSS

WAS AND IS FOR

!RELATIONSHIP!
!INTIMACY!

Intimacy such that the celebratory sexual intercoarse of ideal friends and lovers in marriage is labeled a type, a symbol, a metaphor for Christ's love for/intimacy with His Body--The Church.

That's no ethereal--spiritualized hands and gazes across the 'spiritual plane'/'spiritual galactic cluster' nonsense.

THAT'S KNOWING and BEING KNOWN INTENSELY INTIMATELY.

Writing about such otherwise smacks of less intimacy and less reality in relationships than at a formal diplomatic tea at Buckingham Palace between the Queen and the Queenly despised Mrs Michelle Othuga.

God have mercy!

772 posted on 05/26/2011 11:33:39 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson