Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
That is very true. I have spoken to some here on FR, they are the one's who told me about the different sects w/in the Lutheran faith. Personally, I think they should break off and go on their own, if they haven't done so already.
I do believe there is only one true "religion"....exactly which one, is what I am seeking. However, I don't think it's any of our already established religions.
One thing I am truly grateful for is this thread. For me, it's been one big Bible study!!
"That is the language English, a gloriously messy language!"
True true!! However, I am not British and we are not ruled by a king (perhaps a little boy wearing a big man's suit,who THINKS he's king), but I digress. =)
No, I do not believe they are One.... John 8: 40-54. I want you to read the entire scripture.
Especially John 8:54...Jesus answered "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God".
And then, why must we pray in Jesus name in order to get to the Father? If the Father and Jesus were "One", we could pray directly to God, because we would be praying to Jesus as well, since they would be One.
Amen. Looks like it will take the end of times to create the one true religion.....The Church of Christians.
It already exists and by the grace of God we have "the savour of life unto life" to each other.
I think it will become easier for those who are saved to find each other as the days progress.As the world grows darker every little light will stand out that much brighter.
God bless and keep you friend.
And also you. :)
Never been to either.
If you have a substantive question, feel free to ask. Or just read the Holy Scripture for yourself. Or read the Catechism.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.
So do I, as Catholic.
“As to the second part of your question, reformed Baptists and reformed Presbyterians such as the OPC and PCA believe in the five points outlined as TULIP...”
I’d have to disagree. At least in theory, the SBC is ‘reformed baptist’. I’ve been attending SBC churches in various locations for most of the last 35 years, and independent baptist churches when I didn’t.
I have never, ever heard a sermon discuss ‘TULIP’, and have only heard a couple of formal discussions involving predestination. Based on the SBC baptists I’ve met, and perhaps 1000 sermons listened to, with more from other baptists, I’d say the reality is:
1. Total depravity - yes, although most Baptists may define it a bit different than Calvin.
2. Unconditional predestination - for believers to be conformed to His son? Yes. For salvation? Very few - perhaps 5% or less. I suspect most agree with Moody: “The elect are the whosoever wills, the non-elect are the whosoever “won’ts”.”
3. Limited atonement - No. I honestly have never met a Baptist in the SBC or elsewhere who believes in limited atonement, although they may exist. I have never heard one discuss or teach it.
4. Irresistible grace - No. I had never even HEARD of it until reading on FR. I have never talked to a Baptist or listened to a sermon where it has mentioned or accepted. The systematic theology text our Sunday School class is working thru claims to believe it, but the writer contradicts it at least a dozen times on the same page.
In all the sermons I’ve heard preached on John 3: “”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God”, no one has even hinted at believing in Irresistible Grace.
5. Final perseverance - Yes, perhaps 80% or more.
On baptism, Baptists believe “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptised a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him, of remission of sins, and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.”
“Baptists and Presbyterians can differ on the timing of baptism and still believe each other is a redeemed Christian.”
Correct. Most (but not all) Baptist Churches I’ve been in will not allow you to become a voting member of the church unless you have been baptized on your confession of faith. Most (but not all everywhere) will accept that one can be a Christian without any baptism, provided you don’t plan on staying that way, and will allow that many Christians consider their baptism as an infant to be fulfilled by their faith later.
I think Acts shows that God will bring it all about to conclusion, although not always in the order we expect of Him. And as Dr E points out, my disagreements with her are minor compared to my disagreements with the Catholic Church - where, FWIW, I believe God has saved believers residing as well, although many Catholics are NOT saved, and Catholic theology is badly wrong in many areas.
However, I suspect the thief on the cross didn’t have a fully formed theology, either!
Sorry, Cronos - left you off the address to post 1371, although most of it was intended as a response to you.
I hope y’all will forgive me if I chase a different rabbit for a moment...
These threads discuss doctrine. Scripture isn’t written as a systematic theology text. Why? Because intellectual assent is nothing.
Scripture is “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”, and when it is used to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness, the result is “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Calvin discusses it some here:
“This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,” (Eph. iv. 22.) They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel. Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/chr_life.iii.html
I’m beginning to think doctrine is something for older Christians to study, as a way of understand what HAS happened and finding new areas to explore in their relation to God.
If we start with doctrine, we can quickly form intellectual assent to many propositions, and never work them into our lives. As an example, here are two simple, basic scriptures:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3
“For by grace you have been saved through faith.” - Ephesians 2
Both of these played a role in my coming to Christ. And yet, pushing 40 years later, both are ones I’m just BEGINNING to see. I still haven’t worked them properly into my life!
Doctrine is something that is comprehended FROM a changed life, not something that changes the life itself. And that is why God gave us scripture and not a text. What we need is not logical assent to doctrine, but “to present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is [our] spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of [our] mind, that by testing [we] may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” - Romans 12
Just a thought...gotta go feed the horses & get ready for church.
It would be blasphemy to worship graven images, it is not blasphemy to venerate and offer intercessory prayers to the individuals represented by the images. There is, after all a major difference between worship and prayer.
alright, sorry. You’re evil and I’m a Muslim, but we won’t take it personally, lol
Very good posts. Jesus said we must be born again, and not all baptized at birth are born again. Many are just born into their parents religion and therefore think they are of that church . The thief on the cross was born again by professing his belief and Jesus forgave him his sins
Absolutely right! A great example is Paul, who after he was born again understood all that he had learned and defended so harshly as a Pharisee, in Jewish theology, and understood how Christ was a fulfillment of that Law.
It was the ideological forefather of fascism, which itself was the warped product of a Calvinist Presbyterian mind: Woodrow Wilson, America's first fascist president.
This must be a broken clock occasionally showing the right time moment for Calvin, because Calvin's passage that you cite and summarize is a very Catholic, and also, especially, very Orthodox statement. As I like to say, religion is not what we think, it is what we do.
What a muddled mess you've posted.
The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
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.