Pope says uniting Christianity requires conversion

Oops:)

Meant to say....

I never said it WASN’T the same Spirit.

*****If we are born again, born to life spiritually, we’d BETTER exhibit a new nature. It comes with the territory.****

****If someone can’t see a dramatic change in their lives with that commitment, they need to take a really close look at exactly what it is they believe and what it is that they professed to.****

What happens if one who is born again doesn’t exhibit a new nature? What changes would be expected in their life?

I thought one only had to believe.

BBrrrrraaaaaccckkkkkk!

The Catholic church kept Scripture out of the hands of common man.

Brrraaaaacccckkkkkk!

Yep, that’s a good parrot.

I get all that, it’s the protestant mantra.

It is not the Catholic who is so dependent on the translation as in the language Jesus spoke there would have been no awkward transition between the masculine and feminine.

Explain to me WHY Jesus changed Peter’s name to Rock.

That’s right. Without man there would be no “church”. And there is no way I would make the other two legs you talk about equal to God or His word.

Good try, really. Doesn’t hold up, though, just like your one legged stool.

....out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”...Matthew 12:34

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079328/Priests-brawl-Bethlehems-Church-Nativity-clergy-fight-Christmas-cleaning.html?printingPage=true

:)

What happens if one who is born again doesn’t exhibit a new nature?

Can't happen. If they don't exhibit a new nature, then they weren't born again, no matter what they claim.

What changes would be expected in their life?

Love of God and His word and His people. A desire to live righteously and forsake sin. Conviction of sin when he does sin. A growing hatred of sin in his life. Spiritual discernment. Understanding Scripture. A general cleaning up of his act.

All of the NT bears witness to the changes that occur in the life of the believer.

That does not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that anyone expects these changes to be instantaneous and complete. The child of God still sins, and it may take years to overcome some of the baggage some people carry with them due to situation they were saved out of.

There is another thing to consider also. That is that God is concerned more with the heart than the actions. A person saved out of a bad home life may struggle for years with alcohol or drug addiction or smoking, but God may be working on more important things in their lives, like heart issues and healing relationships.

That is why Christians do and don't consider what a person does as being important. One should not live in habitual, unrepentant sin, but some people struggle and fail in overcoming the sin in their lives.

That's where discernment and mercy come into play and that's why we don't believe that God zaps us based strictly on actions.

We are justified when we are saved; we ARE going to heaven when we die because we are transferred into the kingdom of God's Son and sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is our guarantee, until the day of our redemption.

And yet we are being progressively sanctified as we walk out our Christian lives becoming more and more Christ like as we yield our lives to His leading.

I thought one only had to believe.

One does only have to believe to be saved. Living out the Christian life is not a requirement to get saved, it is the fruit of being saved.

Our motivation is not to try to earn forgiveness or a place in heaven, but out of love to please God and honor Him with the testimony of His work in our lives.

We do good works because we want to, it's our new nature to do righteously, not because we HAVE to or NEED to to placate God and turn away His wrath at our sins. It's done out of love, not obligation.

It is not the Catholic who is so dependent on the translation as in the language Jesus spoke there would have been no awkward transition between the masculine and feminine.

Sources?

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

So that's your story and your stickin' to it...HaHaHa... Whatever...

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

Is Peter writing from Rome in 1 Peter 5 and is Rome indeed the “mother of harlots”?

That is the understanding.

There is only one holy Catholic Church who teaches the Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and handed down to us.

That is a only claim of the Holy Roman Church for one, the interpretive veracity which is assured under the premise of its assured infallibility, including papal, but others claim the same under like premise. Rome's interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history is at odds with that of the EOs to a degree that there is a formal separation, even if not disallowing substantial communion, and which some other churches parallel.

I would rather define it as the personal interpretation of Scripture in order to define individual beliefs on a whim.

While this is a reality, the evidence is also that an overall concurrence on core truths which distinguish them from sola ecclesia cults, which are shunned, while personal interpretation of Rome is also a reality under her Rome's sola ecclesia, and in which are less conspicuous than in churches in which doctrinal commitment is more evident, albeit with the risk of division.

The only ecumenical Creed is the Nicene Creed. And all Churches are somewhat in communion. It is less a matter of theology and more a matter of clashes of individuals.

Indeed. That is my point is well and it pertains to both camps.

There is Catholic teaching versus what a Pelosi or Kennedy might hold, versus what individual Protestants or Protestant churches do hold given their claim of personal interpretation.

Which is based upon their PI of Rome, as the other is of Scripture. And as far as serious deviation of individual members is concerned, Pelosi or Kennedy type Roman Catholics, who see no real manifest discipline, can far more easily refers to themselves as Catholic due to what this commonly manifests (Catholics are more likely to vote them in), rather than evangelicals.

And again, Rome herself is like one denomination despite her claims, and has distinctive beliefs based upon her “infallible” claim to be protected from PI. Meanwhile, there is historical Protestant teaching based on Scripture shared by evangelical denoms which marks as aberrant those whose unScriptural interpretations render them more like a Mormon or a Catholic. And both Catholicism and Protestantism have categories of indisputable beliefs and ones that allow more interpretation.

Both Catholic and evangelical-type Protestant churches have their commonly held “traditions — which SS does not disallow, but requires them to be Scriptural traditions — and which includes a basic interpretive hermeneutic seen in Scripture, versus revisionist, and against which aberrations are contrasted. And like Rome, they also have distinctive truths which separate them formally from others, but does not necessarily isallowing substantial communion with them.

SS preachers expect adherence to whatever it is that they preach today.

This is what i said. But not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of men, which is not the basis for the establishment of Truth in Scripture, but upon the weight of infallible Scripture, textual and testimonial, which is why we contend for the Truths we hold together with you, and against those which are a product of Tradition (PTDS, etc.) and thus the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome by which they have authority.

And yesterday, today and tomorrow may or may not have any similarity to SS preachers.

While there are some contrasts this also true of Rome with its extensive development of doctrine but with us this overall is the opposite of what is historically manifest in essential doctrine, which is why we are still preaching salvation by grace versus earning it by merit, and battling Catholics and cults over the same issues, or against liberal institutionalized Protestantism which looks more like Roman Catholicism in its effects year by year. As Scripture is the only material transcendent authority that is wholly God-breathed, and is the reason we hold to our commonly held truths, so it will ever be the standard to uphold such. There is wide spread unScriptural moral decline in these latter days (in which this is prophesied: 2Thes. 2:3) but this also is shared with Roman Catholicism (one Catholic even referred to this prophecy in justifying that Rome was the OTC because of its spiritual declension).

Meanwhile, it is Rome which protects itself from charges that is has really changed, not only by infallibly declaring what Scripture, Tradition and history teaches (thus Manning, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine..” http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt), and in which it differs enough from the EOs take on such to be formally divided, but also by reinventing itself as needed.

Therefore while it was once “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html) now generally speaking us formerly damned heretics who take Sacred Scripture “as a norm of belief “in “ecclesiastical communities” outside Rome — with whom you were once forbidden to debate — are united with Christ, with the Holy Spirit being “operative among them with His sanctifying power.”(Lumen Gentium: 16. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

And while torture once had papal sanction (“murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others”) now it “cannot be contravened under any circumstances,” (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~draker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html)

But as it was in the past, so it is now. While both the magisterium and formal dissent are scriptural and have their place in confirming men and being instruments of grace, formal decent of office is not how spiritual authenticity was assured in Scripture. As said, the authenticity of prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and His apostles was not established because those who sat in the seat of Moses affirmed them, but their authority was established upon Scriptural substantiation and its means of attestation. And so it must be now if the church is to be the Church of the living God, preaching the Gospel of grace which effects manifest manifest regeneration, and by which it gains its members, versus its institutionalized counterpart which, like the Pharisees, largely rests upon its pedigree after the flesh.

However, Scripture was not the model for the first Christians. Teachings of the Apostles and the early Church was. Scripture simply backed up what the Church taught.

Sure they preached more than read, but Scripture was indeed the model for the first Christians, as this did did not simply “back up” or being superfluous or merely auxiliary, what Scripture said and taught as abundantly evidenced was essential to the authority to the teachings of the Apostles and the early Church. And Christianity would have gotten no where with its claims apart from it, or have been able to add to it, in conformity with its principle of progressive revelation. And thus Christ “opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Lk. 24:45)

Paul says that the Church is the basis and pillar of truth, not Scripture.

But as seen in Scripture, Scripture is the assured word of God, the truth, it being the only transcendent material authority which is wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16) Oral tradition by nature is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, while even the inspired instruments of holy writ did not possess assured formulaic infallibility, by which Rome channels tradition into doctrines (including its own assured infallibility) which requires assent of faith if it were Scripture, even if she does make a distinction between herself and them.

In addition, it is the church of the living God which manifests and upholds the truth, and knows better than to extrapolate the assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium of Rome out of a verse (1Tim. 3:15) which uses two words that can hardly be said to denote anything more than the idea of supporting.

Your essays are normally well reasoned and thought provoking. Thank you.

And in need of improvement, and again sorry for the length, but in any case we should try to be willing to go with the truth may lead, and despite the charge of the atheists that Christians are required to give blind faith, the Lord Jesus asked a lot of questions, and appealed a lot to analytical reason in saying and doing things which enabled and required men to conclude as to who He really was and what the truth was based on the evidence. As does the Holy Spirit in Scripture. I think one the most subtle examples regarding his deity begins in John 12:34b (cf. Is. 6:1-10)

Now as an engineer, I'm sure you found or will find this thought-provoking: http://youtu.be/ASd0t3n8Bnc

However, Scripture was not the model for the first Christians. Teachings of the Apostles and the early Church was. Scripture simply backed up what the Church taught. Paul says that the Church is the basis and pillar of truth, not Scripture.

The Old Testament Scriptures most certainly were used extensively by the first Christians and Jesus referred to them numerous times to show that Moses and the Prophets spoke of Him. The early believers also had the benefit of being in the presence of Jesus, himself, and his personal teachings or with the Apostles or their direct disciples who continued teaching the same truths. The early churches had leaders installed by the Apostles who had been vetted to ensure what they knew and taught was the same and, afterward, they received the letters written by Paul, Peter, John, etc. as they were written and copied and dispersed throughout the regions. This is why there are literally thousands of extant copies of the ancient documents still around and held in collections and museums.

Lastly, I take issue with your MIS-interpretation of I Timothy 3:15. The Church is NOT the "basis and pillar of the truth" but "a pillar and buttress of the truth". In other words, it is supposed to uphold and be the foundation of the truth not be the "basis" of it. That's why God gave us Holy Scripture. Any church which fails to do that is a false one. If anyone preaches a gospel other than the one we have in Scripture, they are preaching an accursed gospel.

It really does take time , too often the church is much guilty at sweeping up new Christians too quickly and not letting them adjust to their new standing in Christ...helping them to understand what's taken place and what they might expect as they begin their walk with the Lord. We see this happening with what a call "Hollywood Conversions"....

... They are seemingly saved and then someone puts them 'on stage' to give a testimony, and or drill them how they need to be telling everyone about Jesus. I saw this occurring in churches I've been while traveling.... who they themselves have little understanding of their responsibility to a new convert of the faith. As some have said.."It's show time!". Then they wonder what happened when the new convert crashes and burns.

They're invited prematurely to bible study classes way over their heads and become discouraged along the way. Not to mention the high expectations of members who have forgotten where they once were.

I was blessed to have a Pastor and his wife take me under their care and for that I learned and with this had many questions answered. Too often those who are volunteering to teach are in no position to really do so.

Initially though it is best to let the individual enjoy the love they have for the Lord and rejoice with them....don't push...too many forget that these are "infants"....and need to learn to "walk" with the Savior....in His time not ours.

People forget that the Holy Spirit has His timing and His teaching..and His way with individuals...I think people can sometimes get in the way despite their good intentions...and why critical you follow the Lord's lead and not your own when working with new Christians. We have too many leading them around who themselves are not following the Lord.

The early believers also had the benefit of being in the presence of Jesus, himself, and his personal teachings or with the Apostles or their direct disciples who continued teaching the same truths.

This is an important statement. Our King walked and spoke with so many...imagine.... they were speaking with Lord face to face!

I think we forget that Jesus wasn't always teaching....He was enjoying the company HE kept and they Him....just as we do now.

As usual, this exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the progression of the Church, which while still the same Church as in the NT in substance, if not form, as well as a lack of understanding of the primacy of Peter, within the Church.

Actually, I do not have a "profound" lack of understanding about the history of the Roman Catholic Church, though, it is understandable that this may be the preferred corner to place all those who disagree with Catholics on pretty much most of what they call authentic history and warrant for their grand claims of authority. It simply does not stand to reason that it is a given the gifts and abilities Jesus bestowed on Peter and the others were things they, in turn, had the power to hand down.

Much of the first millennium of Christendom does not evidence this "seat of authority" in Rome but of a number of local congregations led by those who were at first taught by the Apostles and disciples but then continued to teach the truths that these same Apostles or their authorized speakers wrote down and ensured were dispersed throughout the Christian world.

What you describe happening in that first council in Jerusalem is indeed a healthy standard for how any further disputes were dealt with but unless the result can be verified by Scripture, it is not binding on the believer. Nearly all of those early church fathers voiced that same impression. As to the issue of Papal Primacy and Apostolic Succession, there is much to indicate the basis and background for how that DID develop in the later centuries was spurious forgeries. Such writings as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis are example of such documents that were used - even by men such as Thomas Aquinas - to reinforce and promote the doctrine of the Papacy. This article goes into detail concerning them Forgeries and the Papacy. Another article, if you are interested, is The nonexistent early papacy and Historical Literature on the Earliest Papacy. Rather than presume that only Rome has the copyright to Christianity, why not expand that viewpoint and accept that the Gospel is what sets Christians apart from the world.

David was extremely sinful. God made him a great king, the line from which Jesus comes to us, despite having to forgive him many, many sins.

David even though he was a sinner was a man after God's own heart because he was always humble enough to repent of his sins. He always acknowledge what he had done wrong and then he changed his ways . Did you get that part ? He always repented . BTW David was no worse a sinner than any other human being ... if you have thought it you are just as guilty in Gods eyes because what he looks at is the heart .

Think about that ... he was the King of Israel who had to answer to no other human and yet he did not ever declare himself infallible as some others do ... he always humbled himself and changed his ways when he was wrong and for that he was beloved , a man after God's own heart .

So, there must be evidence of some sort that one is a believer?

Interesting.

And what does it mean to you “Love of God, His Word and His people?

Would it mean to worship God, read His word and feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned?
Admit one is a sinner and repent and do one’s best to avoid it?

Those are actions.

On the contrary, if one does none of those things, but professes faith then one is actually not “born again” and what? Isn’t saved?

And then, if one is unable to change one’s life, if they have too much baggage then one is still saved because God knows their heart, even if we do not?

Well, I have to ask which is it?

You said one’s nature BETTER change as if there is a consequence if it doesn’t.

So, faith=salvation which leads one to do certain things and live a certain way, except when it doesn’t.

Okay.

Cephas is rock and used in both instances with no feminine or masculine distinction. Paul uses this name when writing the name Jesus gave Simon.

It is only in the Koine Greek, that petra, the feminine word for rock is changed to Petros due to the fact that Simon is male.

So, it is not the Catholic who depends on the translation from the Aramaic to the Greek which creates the awkward transition between the two uses of rock.

Sources?

Many, but you can find it through google.

So, there must be evidence of some sort that one is a believer?

There WILL be evidence or the profession of faith is highly suspect.

And what does it mean to you “Love of God, His Word and His people?

To live a life pleasing to Him, to have a hunger for reading the word of God (Scripture), to have a new love for others that does not come from within. It's an internal desire for things relating to God.

I've talked to people who've been saved out of drugs and alcohol and gambling and porn, and what happens with them is that they lose all desire for doing that stuff. Something they embraced and lived for now means nothing to them or is now repugnant. They don't do it any more because they don't WANT to do it. They have that new nature that isn't interested in those things. It's not a matter of working up self-control and by force of will fighting the addictions. They leave on their own.

Yeah, and there is still a lure there because the old nature is still around wanting those things, but grater is He who is in us than he who is in the world.

You know what, this is like trying to describe light to a blind man.

And then, if one is unable to change one’s life, if they have too much baggage then one is still saved because God knows their heart, even if we do not?

Its not a matter of us changing our lives. It's a matter of our lives being changed by God. It's like breathing. It happens. If it doesn't happen and the person shows no evidence of that change, they need to closely examine what they believe and their commitment to Christ.

So, faith=salvation which leads one to do certain things and live a certain way, except when it doesn’t.

It always does. It's not up to us to judge based on the speed of the progress. That's God's department.

RE. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " (1 Timothy 3:15)

Though i have not seen this verse infallibly defined, RCAs lay much weight upon this verse in contending this refers to Rome being the assuredly infallible instrumental source of and authority on truth, even though (or because) the text only says "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," in which the words rendered "pillar and ground" (DRB) or "pillar and foundation" (NAB) - "stulos" and "hedraiōma" - both denote support(ing). The former is used as "pillar" elsewhere while latter only occurs here in Scripture, and while it comes from a word which can mean support in the sense of ground, is not one of the words used for foundation, (katabolē, themelios) collectively 22 times, and which Christ is said to be. (Some believe the pillar and ground in this verse refer to the living God.) The word of "of the" (truth) is only one word, and can be rendered "to the" (Mt. 5:25) but here "of the" would seem to be required.

Vines states "Στύλος pillar, in Paul only Gal_2:9. In Rev_3:12; Rev_10:1. Ἑδραίωμα stay, prop, better than ground. N.T.o. olxx, oClass. The kindred adjective ἑδαῖος firm, stable, 1Co_7:37; 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23. These words are in apposition with church.

The idea is that the church is the pillar, and, as such, the prop or support of the truth. It is quite beside the mark to press the architectural metaphor into detail. By giving to ἑδραίωμα the sense of stay or prop, the use of the two words for the same general idea is readily explained. The church is the pillar of the truth, and the function of the pillar is to support."

And again, that "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," refers to the church being just that finds no objection with us under SS, for the church upholds the truth, the Scriptures being the assured word of truth, while the church is also "of the truth" in being built upon truth, principally the truth of Peter's Scriptural confession, and thus Christ Himself, "On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC, pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424).

The upholds this truth most primarily by preaching "the word of the truth of the gospel," (Col. 1:5) which "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Romans 16:26)

But using this verse to uniquely refer to the Roman Catholic Church and its assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) under its petrine papacy, perpetuated thru apostolic succession - all of which it must according to their private interpretation of it - requires

a level of extrapolation which relates to and is akin to the attempts to force Mt. 16:18 and other texts to refer to the same, which they will not do individually or collectively, nor is premise that a perpetual AIM is necessary to preserve Truth Scriptural.

As said, unto the Israelites "were committed the oracles of God" (Rm. 3:2) and "to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. " (Romans 9:4-5)

Yet Scripture was given and established, and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium of men, but the Scriptures were established as the perpetual assured word of God, and standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and so it is today.