BigMack
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
I have the list somewhere, but there is quite a list. WHen I find it, I'll post it.
Yes or No Dave. Does the New Testament confirm the Genesis account of the Noadic flood?
I told you when Jesus compared the physical and spiritual He said the "flesh profiteth nothing". So because you believe the flood is allegorical (disrespecting scripture) and allend believes its historical, which one of you are not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You haven't answered me yet.
angelo your a stingy Hebrew. :)
Big Mack (aka Gentile Dog.:)
Wrong. Obedience to His commands is part of the walk AFTER being born again. -You are adding something to being born again that was not required either by Jesus or the apostles. Believe and confess. I don't see anywhere in that verse "and obey all Gods commandments and you shall be born again." No. Believe and confess is the foundation. You're trying to tell use the foundation, the walls and roof are all put up in one shot. That ain't how they taught it, and it isn't how it works.
If one was just born again, they can take communion; but, it's a matter done for reflection. It doesn't make them any more born again than when they believed and confessed. Like I said, the catholic church doesn't even understand basic salvation and it shows in what you say here. You don't understand the spiritual work. If you did, you wouldn't be pushing this nonsense of you get born again then go participate in the sacrifice... Blasphemous garbage. If not for participating in the sacrifice through it's acceptance, not a single soul could ever be born again. WAKE UP!
BigMack
A rather unfortunate choice of scripture. ;o)
I'll be glad when you acknowledge the existence of the people of Israel and their necessary role in the transmission of Scripture. Jerome wasn't reading from golden tablets when he translated the Bible.
Yes. I am inclined to believe there was a great flood. No kidding.
SD
Thanx for your reply, I'm in danger of getting more dust on me but here goes. :)If I understand what you have posted right, you are saying were all right if we hold onto what Christ did on the cross for us, but you still hold to the teachings of the catholic church on how to receieve the grace and I hold to the faith only teachings only and we both could be in sin because of our error if either of us is wrong, but we both will finish the race inspite of ourselfs, is that about right?
Not exactly. You can't just intellectually assent to some unknown "christ". You faith must be in the real person of Christ with at least some understanding of what you are professing. I am not putting in loopholes for JWs or Mormons because they speak of some "christ" who bears a resemblance to the lead character in the Book. If you deny the trinity, then your "christ" is not "Christ" and is unlikely to benefit you on the last day (leaving some wiggle room for the whole "accountability" thing - whether it's children, or mental retardation or whatever - I'm talking within normal circumstances). If you believe that Christ was "a" god instead of "The" God you have problems.
But if you are arguing over whether Christ is "really" present in a spiritual sense but not a physical sense in some pseudo communion service I refuse to think that that puts you outside the Body. You are merely wrong, not eternaly damned. If you believe that tongues has not existed since around 3-400 AD and anyone who thinks they are speaking in tongues is listening to some "other" spirit or if you believe that you have not "really" been baptised until you have spoken in tongues (or some similar charism) you may be wrong, and that error is a sin. And apart from a faith in Christ that sin alone would damn you, but that sin is not "apart" from Christ. It is probably because you retain some inclination to sin (Paul called it "this sin within me that is not my sin"), whether it be pride or arogance or vanity or faith in what your parents/pastor/girlfriend/whatever believed instead of sound doctrine. You are merely wrong, you are not any enemy of God.
I think I've said it before. That new Christian who hears the Gospel on Sunday and believes doesn't deal with issues of sanctification, or obedience or individual doctrine. They merely learn who Christ is (God,Son of God, became man), what He did (emptied Himself to become like us to take on/away the price for our sin, died for those sins and rose again conquering them) and what (s)he must do to leave the family of Adam and become an adopted child of God and co-heir with Christ (simply believe). What comes later is the understanding that God still desires/demands obedience and (s)he will desire to come to know what that means, but getting those doctrines wrong (or even misunderstanding the consequences of not obeying, or how we "get right" with Him when we continue to sin) is a sin (a new nail in His hands) and only a sin which can no longer condemn us for it is paid for just the same. All humans believe that they need to be "good people" in order to get to heaven, and that doesn't always change when they meet Christ. The fact that they continue to misunderstand the "economy" of Salvation is an error and a sin and frankly no less common in NC churches than RC ones.
Well you know me. I take the Bible literally. :-)
"...Like I said, the catholic church doesn't even understand basic salvation and it shows in what you say here..."
Scripture very clearly lays out what the Catholic Church is to do, and she follows Scripture and uses Church Authority and Tradition. Even when the Scripture is provided, you ignore those, several in fact, who ask you questions. Why? I suppose it is because Scripture can only mean what you want it to mean, not what God says it means.
I told you when Jesus compared the physical and spiritual He said the "flesh profiteth nothing".
Yes you did. And you also said that when I said "His flesh" instead of "the flesh" that I was wrong. Because Jesus didn't mean that His Own Flesh was of no profit.
Havoc said differently. That even Jesus' own flesh body is of no profit.
You guys disagree. Face it. That means only one of you is guided by the Spirit, right?
So because you believe the flood is allegorical (disrespecting scripture) and allend believes its historical, which one of you are not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You haven't answered me yet.
Either me or allend could be wrong. But we do not claim that the Spirit guides each individual to absolute Truth all by himself. You guys do. I can not be caught in your trap, only you.
SD
You wake up! One is born again in Baptism. And the grace of Baptism flows from the Sacrifice. I don't teach that the Eucharist is the experience that makes one "born again." It's a lot easier to make up stuff and then attack that, instead of listening, isn't it?
SD
Is guiding us to absolute truth. We haven't attained it all yet. We don't pretend to have attained it all. Unlike some big organization that you belong to.
Your gonna just love post # 7551, I called up some neighbors and friends and were here with popcorn, beer, party hats, waiting on your reply, its a heck of a party, one guy is in my office with his pant's down and setting on my copy machine, I'll fax it to ya later, were all rooting for ya. :)
BigMack
That explains the 10% Jewish population of the Roman empire and the large numbers of righteous gentiles who worshipped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Of course, it was hard to accept converts later on when conversion likely meant persecution and/or death. Nevertheless, there were in fact converts from Christianity to Judaism even in the middle ages, including a Catholic bishop and archbishop.
Well, that's different then. I'm glad we sorted that out.
SD
As far we know his name could've been Jerome Smith. ;^)
-Kevin
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.