Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
Well, then, when the author comes forward, and presents it, then we can all read it and discuss it....as always, I like to go to the source, and since the source is supposed to be on FR, then he will be able to present his document...
Sorry, but as I said before, I dont like to take things like this, from a second or third hand source, when the true source, is available, as has been stated, a FReeper...
I’m sure at some time he will come forward. It’s up to him and him alone. He has a prophetic voice and is a Catholic.
Exactly..
And it will be interesting if and when he does come forward...but until such time as he does, I won’t give it another thought....if and when he does come forward, that will be the time for reading his document and for careful thought about what I have read...
Thanks for the confirmation, Mary.
Did your spirit resonate with it too, Mary?
I felt the “Woes” were quite accurate.
My dear betty boop,
To which book does this refer?
Dear me.
Confirmation or not, whose spirit resonates or not, is simply not the issue here..let each one who reads this document, decide for themselves....as it surely should be...so if and when this document does appear, we can all read it and judge for ourselves and come to our own conclusions....
But because there has been some interest in it, it will likely be made available through the same outlets as betty boop and my previous book Don't Let Science Get You down, Timothy
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear OLD REGGIE!
Praise God!!!
Thanks.
He should read of your interest.
However, he’s not willing to send it by FREEPMAIL.
Though he might be wlling to discuss alternatives on FREEPMAIL.
Please see your FREEPMAIL.
Presbyterians don’t believe in baptismal regeneration - you don’t get saved by being baptized. I believe that Church of Christ and some other related Campbellite bodies do believe in a form of baptismal regeneration.
To folks not of the Reformed or Lutheran or Wesleyan tradition, there can be a misunderstanding as to what is meant by ‘means of grace’. The primary means of grace is the word of God, or the Scriptures - reading them, hearing them read, and hearing them preached. No one would say that everyone who heard the scriptures is saved (or at least, no one should). So no more could you say that everyone who is baptized is saved.
I found this little item useful, as it talks a little about the Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan views on the means of grace, and the commonalities and differences (and how all view them differently than do Catholics). See particularly the section ‘Means of Grace in Church History’
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue84.htm
More on the subject here:
http://www.prca.org/sermons/ld25.html
Praise God!!!
___________________________________________ Of course, not a verse of Scripture with this, as the concept of “catholic” (in the Vatican's sense) cannot be established with any short string of verses (circa AD 32), nor does any verse or string of verses (circa AD 32, which would be about the first several chapters of the Acts of the Apostles), place any expression of “Bride of Christ” with any church spoken of there.
The expression of “Body of Christ,” and “Bride of Christ” don't show up in Scripture until after the conversion of the Apostle Paul. The first inklings of the “Body of Christ” as a new entity don't appear until Paul's letters written AFTER Acts chapter 17.
The “church” that Jesus Christ mentioned in Matthew chapter sixteen IN NO WAY must be identical to the “church” found in Acts chapter 2, much less the “church” found in Ephesians chapters 1-3.
It is an absurdity to think that every time one reads the word “church” in the New Testament, that it must be talking about precisely the same entity. There can be more than one “church” referred to in the New Testament, and the New Testament itself proves it.
I argue against Landmarkism (Landmark Baptists) over the same issue. They think that every time one reads the word “church” in the NT, it must be the exact same entity every time — the visible local church — and guess who gets to define it ??? ONLY THEMSELVES!!
The Church of Christ (Campbellite) thinks the word “church” can only refer to them.
The LDS thinks that “church” can only refer to what THEY have restored.”
Everybody using Matthew 16:13-19 for their own organization building.
Well, it just ain't necessarily so for ANY of them.
The word “church” doesn't imply that you are looking at the same entity every time the word is used, any more than using the word “flower” indicates that you are always talking about a rose.”
The only people who think that “A church by any other name is still US & WE” are just people who have a system to protect at all costs; Truth be cut loose like a ripped sale.
What about the church ( ekklesia ) in Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel , Kings, Nehemiah, Psalms, Joel, Lamentations ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:43-48
It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with God.
To God be the glory!
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Corinthians 2:12-14
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.