Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Running On Empty]

I’m sorry but I just have to smile. I can barely tolerate that “LOL” business—but just know that I am :-)ing.

[fortheDeclaration]

We are united by THE GOSPEL. We argue all kinds of things, but not Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone by Christ Alone. I believe the stumbling block for RC's, as it has been explained to me by RC's, is that they perceive defense of their church as defense of their Faith. As a result admitting error would be to admit their Faith is flawed.

Yes, we believe the RCC teaches a false gospel (Gal.1:6-9).

Either they are cursed for preaching the wrong gospel (vs.8) or we are for preaching Justification by faith alone (Council of Trent).

[ScubieNuc]

I anticipated your response, which was to explain to me why, despite my experience to the contrary, the Holy Spirit didn't really come to me before I believed in Jesus.

That's not what I said or implied at all. I accept your testimony that the Holy Spirit 'knocked on your hearts door' when you were an unbeliever. When you opened the door, and He 'came into your heart' you ceased being an unbeliever.

My point was that there is a difference between hearing the Holy Spirit and being sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It was a conscious decision, based on the fact that it's a waste of time to argue with a fellow whose position boils down to, "who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" And, as expected, that was precisely how you responded.

Well, that's not what I posted. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I'm asking people to look at what the Word of God says, that's why I post the verses. My words may have the wrong take or angle, but the Word of God has the power of the Holy Spirit with it. Reject me. Fine. Reject the Word of God, and that is between you and God.

It's never been a secret, and although it's completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread, I finally "confessed" to being a traditional Anglican above.

I was following your dialog with Dr.E. and I couldn't find any place that stated your denomination. After I posted to you, I saw where you gave it up. I just think it's helpful to understand where people are coming from.

Now, you didn't ask me my background, but I'll give you it anyway. I classify myself as a Protestant. I attend a Wesleyan Methodist Church. I'm not a 5 point Calvinist mainly due to my understanding on predistination. If you want more details you will have to ask.

Ah, yes. So you're setting yourself up as the Reformed version of a Scientology Auditor, to gauge the accuracy and correctness of my conversion experience. That's a step up from "high inquisitor." Much higher-tech.

No, not at all. I have no way to gauge the "accuracy and correctness" of your conversion experience. If you say that you are saved, that's fine by me. Ultimately, it's between you and God. My opinion matters not one iota. What I was talking about is the effectiveness of your arguments over doctrine.

BTW, tying me to high tech is actually pretty funny if you really knew me. (I'm not very high tech at all.)

[ScubieNuc]

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

"Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born.

Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process."

The above is not my words, but it does spell out my belief better then I could in the time given. That and other answers about baptism can be found at CARM.org.

[MarkBsnr]

The Galatians that Paul was addressing were converts from paganism in the area that were being enticed to false beliefs by heretical Christians (Judaizers) and Paul was getting very peeved with them.

In other words, they had the Good News from Paul (bishop of the Church), and then some ungodly men came along later and reformed their beliefs. The bishop (Paul) is trying to set things straight again.

I thank you for the example. I think that you are right on.

[r9etb]

Just to point out, Scubie.... you've spent quite a lot of time arguing in a mode of "my Scripture verses" vs. "your Scripture verses."

And the fact is, in most cases it's easy to find verses in one place or another that support either of the positions in this argument.

That should give you serious pause. Perhaps, just perhaps, things are not nearly so cut and dried as you want them to be. And once you realize that, perhaps you and yours will be less willing to condemn those with whom you disagree.

[r9etb]

Now, you didn't ask me my background, but I'll give you it anyway. I classify myself as a Protestant. I attend a Wesleyan Methodist Church. I'm not a 5 point Calvinist mainly due to my understanding on predistination. If you want more details you will have to ask.

I don't want details, and I don't particularly care about your denomination. It is not important, really, because we're both members of the Body of Christ. It only becomes a problem if you begin elevating denomination, and minor doctrinal differences, above membership in the Body.

And here's the deal: everything you're stating as a reason for opposing Catholicism, is a minor difference. You agree with your Catholic opponents on everything that matters. They keep pointing it out to you ... and you keep ignoring what they say.

[r9etb]

No, not at all. I have no way to gauge the "accuracy and correctness" of your conversion experience.

And yet I told you that the Spirit was there before I believed in Jesus Christ, and you undertook to "correct" me.

There was no qualitative change in my sense of the Holy Spirit, before and after -- there is no apparent difference to me between what you differentiate as "knocking" and "indwelling." From my perspective you're offering nothing more than a rather arid academic/theological distinction that has very little contact with the real world.

[Forest Keeper]

As for "Catholic discipline" within the Catholic church, I urge EVERYONE to rent the award-winning documentary on DVD, "Deliver Us From Evil," which is about the recent sex scandals in the RCC.

My wife and I did just that based on your recommendation from before. Thanks again. It was one of the creepiest films I have ever seen. It really WASN'T just a few bad apples. It was institutional.

[ScubieNuc]

I am always surprised at the Scripture that is not taken literally.

You mean like where Jesus claims to be the sun (John 8:12) or a door (John 9:10). You can't take Scripture literally without taking into account the context.

I think one would have to jump through a lot of hoops to arrive at the meaning of amniotic fluid. I don’t see any support for that idea; it just doesn’t make sense.

I didn't jump through any hoops. I posted the support for it using the context of the Scriptures around verse 5. What you should probably say is "I don't buy your support and it doesn't make sense to me." That's fine. That's your choice, but to say there is NO support is false.

Obviously the apostles didn’t think it was amniotic fluid, else why did Peter say “repent, and be baptized”

Wow! Talk about taking Scripture out of context. Where in John 3 does Peter jump in?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks for all your paraphrasing of Scripture, but rather than dump a lot of your Scriptural Cliff Notes on us, why not take one verse and actually read what the Scripture says.

This one, for instance...

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." -- Hebrews 9:12

Now your synopsis of this verse and the conclusion you draw from it are bizarre and seem to be more word play than real understanding --

"Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. "

It's not? Our redemption and our salvation are "not the same thing?"

Have we been redeemed by Christ's sacrifice? Have we been acquitted of our sins by Christ's sacrifice? Have our sins been blotted out by Christ's sacrifice? Is our salvation by and for and through Christ Jesus who died on the cross and rose to prove it true?

Has the ransom been paid?

Keep reading Hebrews, Mark.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14

Rejoice, Mark. Christ and Paul and we Bible-believing Christians want you to realize the ransom has been paid and the heavy work of your salvation/redemption/acquittal has already been accomplished by Christ on the cross, as the writer of Hebrews so graciously tells us.

[ScubieNuc]

That should give you serious pause. Perhaps, just perhaps, things are not nearly so cut and dried as you want them to be. And once you realize that, perhaps you and yours will be less willing to condemn those with whom you disagree.

Number 1, I take all Scripture very seriously. If you or some else believes they have Scripture that contradicts the Scripture I post, then fine post it, and I'll study it.

Number 2, some things are cut and dried. Such as "There is none other name under heaven whereby you must be saved." Acts 4:12 or "There is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 We are to use the clear Scripture to help us understand the unclear Scripture, but to imply nothing is clear is wrong. That sounds like relativism, to me.

Number 3, I can not, nor have I ever tried to condemn anyone. Only God can condemn someone. I can and should as a Christian, point out to other Christians where I think they are in error though.

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

[ScubieNuc]

Pardon me for omitting the cite. Acts 2:38. Please tell me if you find any reference to amniotic fluid.

In John chapter 3 Jesus refers to water as in the physical birth of man. I never said anything along the lines that baptism refers to amniotic fluid. You are confusing topics.

In Acts, I agree with with Peter that salvation comes from repentance. I also believe that after repentance you should be baptised, but I don't agree that baptism is required for salvation. If it was why did Paul say that he was happy that he didn't baptize?

1Cor 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Weren't all those families' sorrows just heart-breaking?

The guilt that one set of parents felt for giving their son over to the priest was so devastating.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Do you see the wisdom we gave the Founding Fathers on the Presbyterian form of government we gave the US?

Amen. First, do no harm.

Deliberation in important matters is seldom a bad thing. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As a Baptist, I object. We only like decentralized authority. We should all be Inquisitors.

lol. Well, there's representative government and then there's anarchy. 8~)

[HarleyD]

Nice eyes. Reminds me of someone.

LOLOL!!! Us Reformed Protestants love to throw that picture around to our Arminian Protestant friends. There must have been something in the drinking water during that period of history. :O)