ECT The Gospel Proper

Status
Not open for further replies.

turbosixx

New member
When the Body of Christ has it in her power to forgive her individual members their temporal debts incurred when they sin. No one but God can forgive eternal debts.
Could you please clarify this. Are you saying the church has power to forgive sins?

I can show you where it is forbidden in Scripture. On none of the pages, in no verses, no books, and no chapters. Like indulgences, infant baptism does not disobey/conflict with/contradict a single jot or tittle of Scripture.

It does conflict scripture.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Does an infant believe?
 

musterion

Well-known member
Wide is the gate that leads to destruction.

What's the harm in discussion?

You think we're fools. We think you're a fool. At least one of us is right but either way, endless arguing with fools is discouraged in the Bible (which you're selective about believing). I guess I'll make the call for us both and put you back on ignore.
 

turbosixx

New member
You think we're fools. We think you're a fool. At least one of us is right but either way, endless arguing with fools is discouraged in the Bible (which you're selective about believing). I guess I'll make the call for us both and put you back on ignore.

I don't think y'all are fools. Even Paul was wrong at one point. I just see the holes in your reasoning and trying to point them out. All I want to do is help.

If you put me on ignore, please don't take me off.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're about as ignorant as my left shoe!

He the leader of 1.2 BILLION Catholics who reside in basically every nation on the planet and he controls more money that you can comprehend.

He's by no means on par with the President of the United States or the Pime Minister of England but he's certainly no bit player either.
You're right. He isn't even a bit player. Politically he's basically impotent, and has been for quite some time.

For example many American Catholics vote 'pro-choice' Democrat. The papacy's position has been that abortion should be outlawed. So if he can't even get Catholics to vote right, then I can't imagine why you would think that he is powerful.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Give me an example, and we'll together see if it's something that those interested in purchasing political power would find attractive.

If one is an actual Roman Catholic then the pope has immense political influence over them. If you can tell me how many actual Roman Catholics there are, I can give you the example of those actual Roman Catholics.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You're right. He isn't even a bit player. Politically he's basically impotent, and has been for quite some time.

For example many American Catholics vote 'pro-choice' Democrat. The papacy's position has been that abortion should be outlawed. So if he can't even get Catholics to vote right, then I can't imagine why you would think that he is powerful.

:rotfl:
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Could you please clarify this. Are you saying the church has power to forgive sins?
Do you?

Isn't the Church just a bunch of yous?

Matthew 6:12 KJV Ephesians 4:32 KJV
It does conflict scripture.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Does an infant believe?
That would conflict, if and only if the Church teaches that baptized infants are all set, and aren't required to believe the Creed once they arrive at the age of reason.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If one is an actual Roman Catholic then the pope has immense political influence over them.
Show me how this otherwise hypothetical political influence manifests. As I pointed out, it doesn't even compel American Catholics to vote 'pro-life.' How easy should that be, if the popes possess this 'immense political influence?' All these Catholics have to do is fill in one circle on the ballot instead of the other, and half of them can't do it. It looks a lot more like Catholics are politically influenced by a coin flip, than by the papacy, in the ballot box.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Show me how this otherwise hypothetical political influence manifests. As I pointed out, it doesn't even compel American Catholics to vote 'pro-life.' How easy should that be, if the popes possess this 'immense political influence?' All these Catholics have to do is fill in one circle on the ballot instead of the other, and half of them can't do it. It looks a lot more like Catholics are politically influenced by a coin flip, than by the papacy, in the ballot box.
They don't vote "pro-life" (which, if we're being honest, isn't really pro-life at all anymore) because the Pope isn't really pro-life.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...eaks-at-catholic-church-pro-life-protesters-k

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-lose-final-appeal-to-keep-baby-son-alive

And that's just TWO of the many links that show him that he is not pro-life.

He is pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-killing-babies, even after they're out of their mother's womb.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I would strongly suggest this is your problem.

:readthis:


You're taking an unfair approach to how Christians WERE CONVERTED.

Why were the Jews told to obey the commandments, repent and be baptized, and the Gentiles were only told to believe? Is that the part you consider unfair?


You're looking at the meat Paul is giving to people who have already been converted to prove your view of conversion. People were only given milk to be converted.

The Gospel of Grace is not "milk". Paul came to preach the Gospel...which is how men were converted.

Your problem is you refuse to see that the Lord came specifically to the Jews (Circumcision), and it wasn't until they had been given every opportunity to accept Him as their Messiah, that the nation of Israel was cast off, and God turned to the Gentiles (through the preaching of the Apostle Paul). That happened MID ACTS. But you fight against that for some strange reason.

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


1 Cor. 2:2 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Milk

Odd you would call the Gospel of Grace "milk". It certainly is simple compared to what was required of the Jews...if that's what you mean.

Believe unto righteousness compared to confess, repent, obey the commandments, get baptized.....


God has seen fit to give us about 12 conversions in scripture. Probably about half of those are Paul's. Why not use those conversions to understand HOW Paul made someone a Christian that he then later writes to?

Then when reading his letters, keep in mind HOW those people he is writing to were converted. I suggest your approach is backwards.

They were converted by hearing the Gospel of Grace. It doesn't get much simpler than that. They were not converted by keeping the law of commandments or any other work of the flesh (such as water baptism).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top