Posted on 09/07/2020 7:14:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It has always been a excuse and a lame one at that. Fortunately here in Puerto Rico local priests seem to be real believers. By and large the ‘Lavender Mafia’ has not made the types of inroads here that they’ve made in Boston, San Francisco or Ireland.
You assert man-made preconditions for God’s forgiveness.
But the New Covenant shows that there is NO precondition to God’s forgiveness, that because Christ already suffered the full penalty and condemnation for every sin that has and will happen, God is NOT imputing the world’s sins to them because his is righteous, does not commit double jeopardy, and wants everyone to receive his son Jesus Christ.
Christ put away sin forever (Hebrews 9:26). The issue is not sin, it is Christ.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness ["repulsive"] to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned1 Cor. 2:13-14.
The true gospel of the grace of God offends man's pride and self-righteousness because God's favor is not deserved, nor can it be.
These people are not to fear God's punishment because Christ (as SCRIPTURE says) has made them Righteous via his death. However, they risk living defeated lives as righteous Lot did. Scripture call Lot righteous even though Lot followed the flesh and had a disastrously defeated life. Righteous Abraham followed the Spirit and lived a victorious, overcoming life.
Instead of services that resemble a comfy group Youtube session, the Church needs straightforward teaching that speaks the truth in love about sin in a way that makes an unbeliever’s conscience and soul uncomfortable to the point where they seek help.
Part of the problem, per se, in pursuing this pathway is that so many of the parishioners are not just in sin (as we all are), but in contradictory manners. For example, it may be fashionable to criticize gays, but ultimately many straight folks are guilty of the same sin gay people commit - sex outside of marriage. Now, to be sure from a scripture perspective gays have two sins on their soul - sex outside of marriage AND the commonality in gender. But telling unrepentant fornicating straights that they are in spiritual effect equal with gays will cause an uproar. The straights will likely make arguments akin to saying that a murderer who gets lethal injection for killing two people is better off than the murderer who gets the chair for killing one person -well...maybe... they're both gonna die, and the unrepentant gay and straight fornicator both go to hell. That's not going to win you awards and it may drain the pews...there's the rub.
Regarding "bad language" I think a balance needs to be struck. "G D it" and saying "J C" isn't kosher (no pun intended) but per this well-written article if Jesus said “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?” (Matthew 12:34)" then being like Ozzie and Harriet or Ned Flanders isn't always right, either.
This sounds more like Paul’s “Gospel” than Jesus Christ’s. There’s no guarantee that these un-Christian “Christians” will live a “defeated life” (whatever that may be) in this world.
If one is engaged in a truly righteous act, then it is never “self-righteousness”.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.2 Tim 3:16-17.
Your reject God's Word to your peril.
When the Communists in Russia began their persecution of Christians, the average church went from 300 to 15 attendees. A 95% falling away. One of the blessings of persecution is finding out who the real Christians are.
Your reject God’s Word to your peril.
______________________________________
I agree. But I don’t always equate God’s Word with Paul’s word.
Got something else for you.
if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Revelation 22:19
As I said, you take away from God's Word at your peril.
Most of what is called the church is not. The church is not organizations or institutions. The vast majority in them do not know God, or His Son, the Lord Jesus.
They have doctrines, beliefs, some of which are true. But they do not know God.
How dare I say that? Those who know God, who know and have a relationship with Him through the Lord Jesus, reflect His life and character - just as in the book of Acts. No - they are not perfect, and there will always be Ananias & Saphira’s - but they will be few, not the majority.
Jesus said, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Does that describe any organization or institution that you know? No. But His words are true, and His church is thriving, walking with Him.
NOT the majority, always the minority. Many hidden, quiet, waiting.
Their lives and walks reveal Him.
Not at all - just the opposite. I believe God chose his elect for salvation in Christ before the beginning of time in his sole sovereignty and based on no works of their own. However, I believe scripture when it says those chosen, once regenerate, will repent of sin and sincerely work to live a life apart from it. That will be of upmost importance to them. Being human they will continue to sin but they won’t live a life of continuous or indiscriminate sin. When they do sin they will feel true remorse and confess it to God. They will sincerely work to eliminate that sin from their life. We don’t do this to earn our way into heaven but, rather, to show our sincere gratitude that we have been given eternal life. However if someone is unconcerned and indifferent to a persistent sin in their live (or even worse, if they work to rationalize or condone it) it is a powerful sign they are not regenerate. Pretty basic Reformed Theology
The Bible only requires that you call upon the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). YOU'RE adding "repentance" as a precondition for forgiveness and salvation. But true Bible salvation comes from receiving Jesus Christ alone, not some sort of man-made cleanup first.
Yet the Apostle Peter acknowledged Paul’s letters as scripture. As such they are as inerrant and “theópneustos” as any other part of God’s word.
In Jesus’ first sermon his first demand was to repent, in all of synoptic Gospels. Peter’s and Paul’s sermons from the book of Act’s they call for repentance. We are not called to just to believe IN Jesus (even Satan and the demons believe in him) but also to believe Jesus - everything he said, did and stood for. To sincerely accept these new ways we must repent or reject the old ways. That’s what it means to “believe” or to “call on the Lord”. You cannot have true belief without repentance- they are the two sides of the same coin.
Are you denying that 1 Cor. 2:13-14 is Scripture? God’s Word always comes through a person, but “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
Got something else for you.
if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:19
As I said, you take away from God’s Word at your peril.
____________________________________________________
Of course Paul’s writings are part of Scripture, but I do not hold that Scripture is the only source of authority. Nor do I hold that your interpretation of Paul (or the book of Revelation for that matter) is inerrant. If one can grievously sin, not seek repentance, and still attain salvation, then that message is repugnant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If that is indeed what Paul meant, then he is not only not inerrant, he is extremely errant.
Yet the Apostle Peter acknowledged Paul’s letters as scripture. As such they are as inerrant and “theópneustos” as any other part of God’s word.
_________________________________________
Peter recognizing Paul’s writing as scripture does not imply that any old interpretation of Paul is inerrant.
Scripture is more than clear about how to deal with sin in the church and churches are not exercising church discipline as they ought.
Somehow, we’ve gotten the mentality that holding people accountable is *unloving* and proof that we haven’t forgiven.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was also just talking about this with a friend last night. She mentioned that sanctification is not being taught in churches that she knows about and I said I noticed the same thing. Nothing about growing more Christlike in holiness.
It’s all about *feelings* and being yet MORE loving and MORE forgiving and of course, *non-judgmental*. And then there’s the whole prosperity gospel nonsense, and the weirdness that’s coming out of the word of faith movement, that’s all focused on us and what we can get from God. Weird manifestations and experiences trump holy living and Bible study.
God is not mocked.
He'll sort it all out.
You said you did not necessarily accept Paul’s word as God’s word. You said nothing regarding my interpretation when making the statement. All scripture is subject to misinterpretation. I do note that we are on the same page with regard to the necessity of repentance.
There aren't
Give us an example of said different versions and interpretations of God's Truth.
Specifics, please. Statements and sources and links.
And that being said, please explain the differences between the EO and the Roman Rite
These differences below are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split.
They have been in schism for over 1,000 years and both consider themselves to be the original Catholic church and the other to be in error and in schism.
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
So who is everyone to believe when both claim they are right?
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.