toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

[IXOYE]

Being a "one woman man" was a character issue, as with all the requirements for elders. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. must meet those qualifications as well. Paul the apostle, (who wasn't married, btw) called himself an elder so certainly he considered himself to meet his own character requirements for being an elder. Being a zero woman man was just as good if not better than a one woman man, especially for his ministry.

It does make sense that a man who would be traveling a lot and living off the contributions of those they ministered to while on the road would not have a wife and family to care for but that doesn't make sense for resident elders, such as a priest who is not on the road full-time. To require them to be celibate is folly.

Well, as much as I prefer to...., I can't disagree with anything there, but I feel my point is missed....

The one woman man, and their children being of the faith, would demonstrate not only character, but their successful exercising of the faith. rather than a "newbie" that said all the right things, but had a house falling apart for reasons not suitable, or his kids were helions rebuilding soddom, etc..

 

[IXOYE]

Catholics listen to 2 k years of the church teaching, as led by their current pope, you call it man made religion.

Yet you worship anyone with a negative word to say about the Church of Rome.

And, where the Catholics on here can make their own arguments, showing they understand their faith, you can't show your own arguments.

Your very words condemn you more than them.

how humiliating.

Don't bother with your non sequitur response and obnoxous repetitive quotes.

They become their own god. linger: Cain also approached God the wrong way.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell [Gen. 4:4–5].

"Someone may say, “I don’t see anything wrong in the thing Cain did.” In the eleventh verse of his epistle, speaking of apostates in the last days, Jude says, “… They have gone in the way of Cain …” What is the way of Cain? When Cain brought an offering to God, he did not come by faith—he came on his own. And the offering that he brought denied that human nature is evil. God said, “Bring that little blood sacrifice which will point to the Redeemer who is coming into the world. Come on that basis, and don’t come by bringing the works of your own hands.”

Cain’s offering also denied that man was separated from God. He acted like everything was all right. This is what liberalism does today in talking about the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. My friend, things are not all right with us today. We are not born children of God. We have to be born again to be children of God. Man is separated from God. Cain refused to recognize that, and multitudes today refuse to do so.

The third thing that Cain’s offering denied was that man cannot offer works to God—Cain felt he could. Scripture says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). The difference between Cain and Abel was not a character difference at all, but the difference was in the offerings which they brought. These two boys had the same background. They had the same heredity. They had the same environment. There was not that difference between them. Don’t tell me that Cain got his bad disposition from an alcoholic grandfather on his father’s side—he didn’t have a grandfather. And don’t say that Abel got his good disposition from a very fine grandmother on his mother’s side. They just didn’t have grandparents. They had the same heredity and the same environment. The difference was in the offerings.

That offering makes a difference in men today. No Christian takes the position that he is better than anyone else. The thing that makes him a Christian is that he recognizes that he is a sinner like everyone else and that he needs an offering, he needs a sacrifice, and he needs Someone to take his place and to die for him. Paul says of Christ: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood …” (Rom. 3:25). Therefore Paul could further write: “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). That is the picture of multitudes of people today. They are attempting through religion, through joining a church and doing something, to make themselves acceptable to God. God’s righteousness can only come to you—because it must be a perfect righteousness—through Christ’s providing it for you. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). That is, He was raised for our righteousness. He was the One who took our place. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Paul says in Philippians 3:8–9, “… That I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ ….” The righteousness of Cain was his own righteousness. The righteousness of Abel was faith in a sacrifice that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice.

We have seen that Cain and Abel had come together to worship God. These two boys were identical. Some expositors actually believe they were twins—I think that was the position of the late Dr. Harry Rimmer. But I believe they were even closer than twins because of the fact they had no blood stream which reached way back on both sides that might cause a difference. They were the sons of Adam and Eve. However, there is a great divergence between Cain and Abel which is not necessarily a character divergence. One was accepted because of the sacrifice which he brought by faith; the other, Cain, brought his offering without any recognition from God at all."McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-30

 

[Krsto]

For students of appeal to authority..... may I present....

Admitting this is bragging, not answering if you were qualified to teach. You are right, it has nothing to do with the question of if you were an authority to teach. So, since you realize that, why do you bring it up. Oh I forgot to brag. To claim authority via eduction to increase credibility. I'm gonna fall for that, yeah.:hammer:

I don't see where anyone said it did. So this non sequitur is a waste of time. Also, if your training and blah blah blah was errant, then no matter how much you had it would be worthless, right?

YOU were the one who brought it up dude, not HS, when you asked if he was qualified to lead a service. If you weren't talking about training to be able to teach then what were you talking about? That's how we generally think of qualification for a job or ministry. Get a grip, dude.

Funny, you can't support that one in scripture effectively that I can see. I'm willing to be wrong. Paul certainly taught differently. And Clement showed that in the end of the first century the Church was certainly run different than what you describe above. Sure seems like selective, protestant, assumptive, concluding to me.

Take a look at Diotrephes in 3 Jn. who pastored a church John planted. Dio turned against John and convinced the people in that church to turn against John. Did John have the authority to take him out of office or kick him out of church? Nope. All he could do was advise his buddy Gaius to not follow in his ways. What if Dio left on his own accord for whatever reason but the people were still turned against the mighty apostle John? Nothing he could do about it. The buck stopped with the elders of the church. No one was over them governmentally, just over them in terms of providing correction if they could receive it.

Then there's Paul who always wrote his letters of correction to the body, only mentioning the leaders off-handedly. It was theirs to follow Paul's admonitions or not, and if the elders didn't take responsibility to correct issues it was up to the body to appoint elders (pastors) after God's own heart. So in that regard the buck really stopped with the congregation.

It's the same with our civil gov. When I worked in the state legislature I would get calls from people mad at their county commissioners for allowing cell towers in their neighborhood and thought a state legislator could "pull rank" on the county commissioner and tell him what to do. When I informed them the state legislature can only do something by getting a majority of the state legislators and the governor to pass a bill and they weren't going to do that just to keep someone from having to look at an ugly cell tower out their back window. They would ask, "Who then has authority over these stupid county commissioners?" I would tell them, "You do. You are a voter. If you don't like your leader find someone you like and work to get him elected. The buck stops with the voters. That's why we live in a constitutional democratic republic so you can fire those leaders who aren't looking out for the people.

In the Catholic Church, however, the people have no recourse to fire leaders who don't really give a damn about the sheep or are even fleecing the sheep, or screwing their young boys.

That is NOT how God set up church government to protect the sheep. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a biblical principle. Too bad churches don't apply it when it has proven to work so well in civil government.

Liturgy, They were taught to teach the scriptures. To read from them at each meeting. I guess liturgical folks assuming that meant read the whole set of scriptures were just ridiculously obedient, and not free thinkers at all. Isn't it funny that the MOST CONSERVATIVE, are rooted in the more liberal Ecclesial decisions?

The SERVICE however, started in synogogues. I guess you would argue that they weren't "services" when a group of jews gathered in an established building to be taught scripture. Yeah, no biblical elements for services at all. That was the earliest of the earliest church, before the Way even.

Sounds like a Frank Viola fan to me. Disregard relevant histories to make a point he personally prefers.:hammer:

Oh, and YOU don't do that? People teach the Word in HS's church so I don't think that's what he means by "liturgical." When the church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost a church "service" took on a whole different dimension than what they were used to at the synagogue. But it seems the Catholic church has gone back to what they were used to. Probably because they lost the Holy Spirit somehow.

The Church, as you put it, that monitored the elders, etc... were LED BY APPOINTED LEADERS!!!!! They were not independently ran. The leaders could trace their appointments back to apostles as best we can tell from scripture. Then were perpetuated from within the church.

You are just plain wrong about this and don't seem to want to consider an alternative interpretation of what we see in scripture.

Yeah, I'm a flaming idiot. But I have historical reasons for my idiocy. And they are more consistent than yours.

You've never really considered alternate interpretations of those historical facts, that is, just what we can say really happened based on the limited data. Your interpretation does not fit very well.

Just as Paul did to the circumcision group's teachers, to Peter, and John did to the gnostic teachers, yeah, I feel like i'm a criminal to let your "selective history" of truth go unchallenged. Admit it, you just don't like being challenged.

Sniff sniff, waaaaaa

I would venture to say HS has thought about all the things you bring up but you are not giving serious consideration to what he or I have been saying.

 

[Krsto]

Well, as much as I prefer to...., I can't disagree with anything there, but I feel my point is missed....

The one woman man, and their children being of the faith, would demonstrate not only character, but their successful exercising of the faith. rather than a "newbie" that said all the right things, but had a house falling apart for reasons not suitable, or his kids were helions rebuilding soddom, etc..

Point well taken. :thumb:

 

[IXOYE]

I paint the only picture shown in inspired writings. History that determines tradition outside of those inspired writings does not hold any weight.

Especially it's written by someone in a time where he heard the apostles speak and teach and they disagree with your views 2000 years later.

That would be like you rewriting AbE Lincoln's diary and saying you got it right and he was wrong.

I admit, there isn't much arguing with your position as it's whack and makes more sense.

What you SHOULD DO as an adult with TONS OF LETTERS after their name, is examine the evidence. You take the closest witnesses and test their comments with scripture. You'll find that nothing in Clement's description of the Church contradicts the Bible. However it may, and will disagree with your anti catholic bias. BTW, I'm not catholic. But, I did the research to learn if I should be or shouldn't be. I didn't memorize what other people tell me is the case.

When you studied 1 Clement, IF you were to humble yourself to do it, I think you'd find variances of what yoU THOUGHT scripture claimed, but see Clement saw it different. Clement who lived during the time of the Apostles, WHICHEVER CLEMENT HE IS!!!!!! The letters were written about the time of John's epistles, so even with a later writing, he lived in the times of the apostles.

HOW are you 2000 years older, a better witness than him. You will claim you are scriptural, but HE is as scriptural, just has a different understanding than you do.

It's amazing to me the amount of predisposition that goes into the western church's teachings. Like works, to the point they are nearly a sin to do if you do them deliberately. Maturation, salvation, sanctification, few know if there is a difference in the word and if so what it is.

And trust me, I'm ignorant on plenty, but I'll admit to it and own my ignorance. I don't make excuses for why MY opinion is better than the records of an eye witness.

That's just..... ummmmm. there isn't a nice word for it.
:shut:

 

[Krsto]

Especially it's written by someone in a time where he heard the apostles speak and teach and they disagree with your views 2000 years later.

That would be like you rewriting AbE Lincoln's diary and saying you got it right and he was wrong.

I admit, there isn't much arguing with your position as it's whack and makes more sense.

What you SHOULD DO as an adult with TONS OF LETTERS after their name, is examine the evidence. You take the closest witnesses and test their comments with scripture. You'll find that nothing in Clement's description of the Church contradicts the Bible. However it may, and will disagree with your anti catholic bias. BTW, I'm not catholic. But, I did the research to learn if I should be or shouldn't be. I didn't memorize what other people tell me is the case.

When you studied 1 Clement, IF you were to humble yourself to do it, I think you'd find variances of what yoU THOUGHT scripture claimed, but see Clement saw it different. Clement who lived during the time of the Apostles, WHICHEVER CLEMENT HE IS!!!!!! The letters were written about the time of John's epistles, so even with a later writing, he lived in the times of the apostles.

HOW are you 2000 years older, a better witness than him. You will claim you are scriptural, but HE is as scriptural, just has a different understanding than you do.

It's amazing to me the amount of predisposition that goes into the western church's teachings. Like works, to the point they are nearly a sin to do if you do them deliberately. Maturation, salvation, sanctification, few know if there is a difference in the word and if so what it is.

And trust me, I'm ignorant on plenty, but I'll admit to it and own my ignorance. I don't make excuses for why MY opinion is better than the records of an eye witness.

That's just..... ummmmm. there isn't a nice word for it.
:shut:

You put a lot of weight on Clement. Was he inspired? His writings were strongly considered for inclusion in the canon 300 years later but were not because they were not considered inspired. Why not?

You ask why we would have a better vantage 2000 years later than Clement. It's simple. Clement didn't have a bible - he couldn't have discerned what is biblical if he had wanted to. We have a bible so we can determine what is biblical.

You also assume that Clement has a committment to preserve apostolic church polity. Don't you think a need for power and prestige could get in the way? Or what about the trials the church was going through at the time which might lead him to favor authoritarianism for the safety of the people, not knowing he would be setting a precedent for future Catholics needing such precedent to justify their own church polity, even after the persecutions had ended under Constantine?

You also assume a lot about Clement being appointed by an apostle to be a "bishop" but how reliable is the information that led either his contemporaries or those after him to make that statement?

You also assume Clement's views were a fair representation of what the whole church believed at the time. Why would you make such an assumption? Clement's views are his and may be his alone. He may have been "breaking new ground," so to speak, to address new circumstances. As I read the apostolic church fathers they felt they had the liberty to improvise, mainly I suppose because they didn't have a bible they felt obligated to uphold. He may have done what you have done and saw in Titus being sent to Crete to be good enough precedent for regional bishops, assuming he was familiar with that story. That's improvisation, not sticking with "tradition".

You accuse HS of being radically skeptical but he is being much more reasonable than one who assumes Clement is a reliable source of truth or a filter to view scriptures through.

 

[HisServant]

You put a lot of weight on Clement. Was he inspired? His writings were strongly considered for inclusion in the canon 300 years later but were not because they were not considered inspired. Why not?

You ask why we would have a better vantage 2000 years later than Clement. It's simple. Clement didn't have a bible - he couldn't have discerned what is biblical if he had wanted to. We have a bible so we can determine what is biblical.

You also assume that Clement has a committment to preserve apostolic church polity. Don't you think a need for power and prestige could get in the way? Or what about the trials the church was going through at the time which might lead him to favor authoritarianism for the safety of the people, not knowing he would be setting a precedent for future Catholics needing such precedent to justify their own church polity, even after the persecutions had ended under Constantine?

You also assume a lot about Clement being appointed by an apostle to be a "bishop" but how reliable is the information that led either his contemporaries or those after him to make that statement?

You also assume Clement's views were a fair representation of what the whole church believed at the time. Why would you make such an assumption? Clement's views are his and may be his alone. He may have been "breaking new ground," so to speak, to address new circumstances. As I read the apostolic church fathers they felt they had the liberty to improvise, mainly I suppose because they didn't have a bible they felt obligated to uphold. He may have done what you have done and saw in Titus being sent to Crete to be good enough precedent for regional bishops, assuming he was familiar with that story. That's improvisation, not sticking with "tradition".

You accuse HS of being radically skeptical but he is being much more reasonable than one who assumes Clement is a reliable source of truth or a filter to view scriptures through.

Thank you.

All I want is the facts. Clement doesn't have a leg to stand on for many reasons.

 

[bucksplasher]

You put a lot of weight on Clement. Was he inspired? His writings were strongly considered for inclusion in the canon 300 years later but were not because they were not considered inspired. Why not?

You ask why we would have a better vantage 2000 years later than Clement. It's simple. Clement didn't have a bible - he couldn't have discerned what is biblical if he had wanted to. We have a bible so we can determine what is biblical.

You also assume that Clement has a committment to preserve apostolic church polity. Don't you think a need for power and prestige could get in the way? Or what about the trials the church was going through at the time which might lead him to favor authoritarianism for the safety of the people, not knowing he would be setting a precedent for future Catholics needing such precedent to justify their own church polity, even after the persecutions had ended under Constantine?

You also assume a lot about Clement being appointed by an apostle to be a "bishop" but how reliable is the information that led either his contemporaries or those after him to make that statement?

You also assume Clement's views were a fair representation of what the whole church believed at the time. Why would you make such an assumption? Clement's views are his and may be his alone. He may have been "breaking new ground," so to speak, to address new circumstances. As I read the apostolic church fathers they felt they had the liberty to improvise, mainly I suppose because they didn't have a bible they felt obligated to uphold. He may have done what you have done and saw in Titus being sent to Crete to be good enough precedent for regional bishops, assuming he was familiar with that story. That's improvisation, not sticking with "tradition".

You accuse HS of being radically skeptical but he is being much more reasonable than one who assumes Clement is a reliable source of truth or a filter to view scriptures through.

I hate to plow "old" ground...actually I suppose that would actually be much easier in the "old" world and for an "old" man...however as we are talking about the "oldest" church around, let us not forget the passing on of "old" beliefs thru "tradition".

If scripture is correct in telling us that His church would prevail in the Spirit and with His (the Spirit's) help, than it would seem to be up to you to discern the "exact" time that the Spirit flew from this "old" vineyard and adopted another.

Was there a temporary time when He was fleeing the "One" and inspiring the other?

tWINs

 

[bybee]

Especially it's written by someone in a time where he heard the apostles speak and teach and they disagree with your views 2000 years later.

That would be like you rewriting AbE Lincoln's diary and saying you got it right and he was wrong.

I admit, there isn't much arguing with your position as it's whack and makes more sense.

What you SHOULD DO as an adult with TONS OF LETTERS after their name, is examine the evidence. You take the closest witnesses and test their comments with scripture. You'll find that nothing in Clement's description of the Church contradicts the Bible. However it may, and will disagree with your anti catholic bias. BTW, I'm not catholic. But, I did the research to learn if I should be or shouldn't be. I didn't memorize what other people tell me is the case.

When you studied 1 Clement, IF you were to humble yourself to do it, I think you'd find variances of what yoU THOUGHT scripture claimed, but see Clement saw it different. Clement who lived during the time of the Apostles, WHICHEVER CLEMENT HE IS!!!!!! The letters were written about the time of John's epistles, so even with a later writing, he lived in the times of the apostles.

HOW are you 2000 years older, a better witness than him. You will claim you are scriptural, but HE is as scriptural, just has a different understanding than you do.

It's amazing to me the amount of predisposition that goes into the western church's teachings. Like works, to the point they are nearly a sin to do if you do them deliberately. Maturation, salvation, sanctification, few know if there is a difference in the word and if so what it is.

And trust me, I'm ignorant on plenty, but I'll admit to it and own my ignorance. I don't make excuses for why MY opinion is better than the records of an eye witness.

That's just..... ummmmm. there isn't a nice word for it.
:shut:

You make some good points.

 

[Sheila B]

it would seem to be up to you to discern the "exact" time that the Spirit flew from this "old" vineyard and adopted another.

Was there a temporary time when He was fleeing the "One" and inspiring the other?

tWINs

right.

and why is the early church so Jewish in morality and liturgically and prayer life and customs. . . even after 3800 years????

hint: same Holy Spirit????

 

[HisServant]

right.

and why is the early church so Jewish in morality and liturgically and prayer life and customs. . . even after 3800 years????

hint: same Holy Spirit????

The Holy Spirit wasn't given till Pentecost...... Because of the sin barrier that all have, without severe need, the Holy Spirit would not indwell anyone.

We also have scripture.. especially when Paul chastises Peter.. that warns against adhering to the old Jewish tradition (because they are exclusionary in nature to Gentiles).

And to add to the other comments... the Holy Spirit never fled the Roman Catholic Church simple because the Holy Spirit was never IN the Roman Catholic Church to begin with.

Jesus assembled an Ekklesia.. not an institution... which is extremely difficult for people to understand, yet extremely important to truly understanding Christ and how his spirit works.

 

[Krsto]

I hate to plow "old" ground...actually I suppose that would actually be much easier in the "old" world and for an "old" man...however as we are talking about the "oldest" church around, let us not forget the passing on of "old" beliefs thru "tradition".

If scripture is correct in telling us that His church would prevail in the Spirit and with His (the Spirit's) help, than it would seem to be up to you to discern the "exact" time that the Spirit flew from this "old" vineyard and adopted another.

Was there a temporary time when He was fleeing the "One" and inspiring the other?

tWINs

You first have to have a correct definition of "the church" before you can even ask those questions.

The Spirit has always been with his people, but his people haven't always been a part of some institution and institutions aren't necessarily populated strictly by his people.

 

[IXOYE]

They become their own god. linger: Cain also approached God the wrong way.

Lots of people did. There is no connection to Cain and this topic in any way. You just like to throw random vss out and around as if you had a point. When you are put on the point and you have NO POINT is proven, you run and hush. :loser:

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell [Gen. 4:4–5].

RCC gives more of the first of their flocks than any protestant group does, in a general sense. Sorry. They do the works expected, are charitable, and you guys say, "can't buy your way to heaven" as an excuse for lazy grace.

"Someone may say, “I don’t see anything wrong in the thing Cain did.”

Who might say that, the strawman you rely upon to communicate?

In the eleventh verse of his epistle, speaking of apostates in the last days, Jude says, “… They have gone in the way of Cain …” What is the way of Cain?

Jude wasn't talking about the RCC, he was catholic that the RCC came from. :|

When Cain brought an offering to God, he did not come by faith—he came on his own. And the offering that he brought denied that human nature is evil. God said, “Bring that little blood sacrifice which will point to the Redeemer who is coming into the world.

Where did God say this? Where does ROme deny this? :loser:

Come on that basis, and don’t come by bringing the works of your own hands.”

Except WORKS OF YOUR OWN HANDS are part of what a person of God will do. Lazy grace. warped expectations, :nono:

Cain’s offering also denied that man was separated from God.

How?

He acted like everything was all right.

How?

This is what liberalism does today in talking about the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.

Protestants are liberal by definition. Sheesh.

My friend, things are not all right with us today. We are not born children of God. We have to be born again to be children of God.

If you knew what a child of God was defined as scripturally you would be less arrogant.:comeout:

Man is separated from God.

No, man fled God. God never fled man. By your own words he spoke with CAIN one on one. :| Adam hid from God, GOD sought Him out. Picture the prodigal son, God is waiting on you to stop hiding, or in your case, to stop rewriting the story and come home! There is no wall between you other than your/our own guilty conscience keeping you from Him.

Cain refused to recognize that, and multitudes today refuse to do so.

Cain was wiser than you and your man made dilemmas. :|

The third thing that Cain’s offering denied was that man cannot offer works to God—Cain felt he could.

No where in the Cain story in scripture.

Scripture says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).

It also says if you don't have works you have no faith. You can't have grace without faith. Without faith you can't be saved, in other words. So for you arrogant cocky folks that teach lazy grace, how many people do you keep from fulfilling their relationship with God by scaring them away from works they were saved to do, idiot.



The difference between Cain and Abel was not a character difference at all,


And character didn't affect what they brought. I guess with no character difference, it's a good thing Cain killed Abel, or else Abel would have killed Cain. :|

but the difference was in the offerings which they brought. These two boys had the same background. They had the same heredity. They had the same environment. There was not that difference between them. Don’t tell me that Cain got his bad disposition from an alcoholic grandfather on his father’s side—he didn’t have a grandfather. And don’t say that Abel got his good disposition from a very fine grandmother on his mother’s side. They just didn’t have grandparents. They had the same heredity and the same environment. The difference was in the offerings.

?? They didn't get it from earth worms either.

That offering makes a difference in men today. No Christian takes the position that he is better than anyone else.

Which is why you are bashing the RCC all the time. Or why the Bash gay threads are here. Right.

The thing that makes him a Christian is that he recognizes that he is a sinner like everyone else and that he needs an offering, he needs a sacrifice, and he needs Someone to take his place and to die for him.


It's called faux humility, and making sin an idol.

Paul says of Christ: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood …” (Rom. 3:25). Therefore Paul could further write: “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).


And paul also wrote that through works, guided by the Church, man would be as spiritually mature as CHRIST was on earth. You don't like that vs much. The fact Paul wrote both, means your view being unreconcilable with the eph 4 vs mentioned is wrong, or Paul was wrong. Which is more likely?

:jump:

That is the picture of multitudes of people today. They are attempting through religion, through joining a church and doing something, to make themselves acceptable to God. God’s righteousness can only come to you—because it must be a perfect righteousness—through Christ’s providing it for you. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). That is, He was raised for our righteousness. He was the One who took our place. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Paul says in Philippians 3:8–9, “… That I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ ….” The righteousness of Cain was his own righteousness.

Cain's sacrifice had no thought behind it of righteousness. Nothing in the records suggest he had any goal or expectations of righteousness. In fact, the whole thing could have been out of ignorance as it's written. Nice REWRITING of the Bible. You must feel overly special to think you have that ability.


The righteousness of Abel was faith in a sacrifice that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice.

We have seen that Cain and Abel had come together to worship God. These two boys were identical. Some expositors actually believe they were twins—I think that was the position of the late Dr. Harry Rimmer.

You and all your MAN MADE GODS to tell you how to think. Isn't that what you condemn Rome of being guilty of?



But I believe

A good sign of errancy.

they were even closer than twins because of the fact they had no blood stream which reached way back on both sides that might cause a difference. They were the sons of Adam and Eve. However, there is a great divergence between Cain and Abel which is not necessarily a character divergence. One was accepted because of the sacrifice which he brought by faith; the other, Cain, brought his offering without any recognition from God at all."McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-30

I just thought I'd take one more shot at showing you all the xtra crap you add to the documents and expect people to accept. When you have to do that to build your faith, you should see that something is wrong.

Perhaps you should spend more time in the Bible than reading other people's thoughts of the Bible.

Put faith in God's Word, not what a man tells you God's word means. Which is your gripe with Rome. Hypocrite.

 

[IXOYE]

The Holy Spirit wasn't given till Pentecost...... Because of the sin barrier that all have, without severe need, the Holy Spirit would not indwell anyone.

where is any scriptural support for the apparent made up "sin barrier" rule. GOD sought out adam after sin and stood in his presence. :| I thought you had lots of degrees?

We also have scripture.. especially when Paul chastises Peter.. that warns against adhering to the old Jewish tradition (because they are exclusionary in nature to Gentiles).

Where is scripture for the supposition "exclusionary in nature to Gentiles," as the reason for him chastising Peter? Perhaps it's semantics and you are saying something other than what I'm hearing.

And to add to the other comments... the Holy Spirit never fled the Roman Catholic Church simple because the Holy Spirit was never IN the Roman Catholic Church to begin with.

Then why do you follow so many results of the RCC? Where do you support this bigotry at in scripture? I can make a much stronger argument that Protestants walked away from said Spirit thanyou can for your position.

Change your name to PRESUPPOSITION servant.

Jesus assembled an Ekklesia.. not an institution...

Jesus assembled nothing. He appointed Apostles and disciples to do the assembling. :|

which is extremely difficult for people to understand,

Especially those who rely on their own prideful presupposition that requires bending scripture to fit their hunches.

yet extremely important to truly understanding Christ and how his spirit works.

Which you obviously have butchered. If you are going to posture against me as this great learned man who is right because of an alphabet after their name, you better make dang sure you are right. :mmph::execute: Because this crap you posted here is no more right than any word of faith preacher's views on wealth and God are. And it suffers the same issues.

 

[Krsto]

I just thought I'd take one more shot at showing you all the xtra crap you add to the documents and expect people to accept. When you have to do that to build your faith, you should see that something is wrong.

Perhaps you should spend more time in the Bible than reading other people's thoughts of the Bible.

Put faith in God's Word, not what a man tells you God's word means. Which is your gripe with Rome. Hypocrite.

Touche'

 

[HisServant]

"COME UNTO ME, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

Christ calls his ekklesia... the Apostles only acknowledge what has already been done and facilitate the christian family, based on the individual gifts temporarily bestowed on them by the Holy Spirit.

Maybe you should look up what an ekklesia actually is?

Here is a good start..

http://bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

In the end, you have been sold a non-Biblical bill of goods that forms the core of your faith..

 

[IXOYE]

"COME UNTO ME, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

And yet you still have to face Christ sending the Apostles/Disciples out to establish said Ekklesia. :Seriously. It's like the question, who parted the red sea, Moses or God. Any way you cut it, MOSES was involved. The Apostles established the ECCLESIA, Christ established, trained and taught the apostles/disciples to do just that. HIS OWN WORDS sent them out to the world to do that. Yes, all are called to Christ in the sense HE is the head of the ECCLESIA, but as Moses was to God, the Apostles/Disciples were to Christ.

Perhaps you should forget about the alphabet after your name, stop being a condescending pithy pants when you are legitimately questioned, and show me how I'm wrong. So far, that attempt has failed. :argue:

Christ got his responsiblity from God,
Mat 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Christ passed it on to the group he trained...

John 17: (NASB)13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them [fn4] from [fn5] the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

I don't see much credibility to the emphasis you put on the Ecclesia being to Christ alone. After the Christ's prayer above, in ephesians 4, which was brought up before I believe, and you've yet to account for, says the CHURCH is to lead the people to works of service and that thru that they gain knowledge, unity, and maturity to the fullness of the Christ. That Church was under the leadership of the elders, who were led by a bishop of the area, or an apostle/perhaps disciple. That's what we know from scripture. It doesn't match up with your view.

Christ calls his ekklesia... the Apostles only acknowledge what has already been done and facilitate the christian family, based on the individual gifts temporarily bestowed on them by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if only scripture supported that as you express it.

Maybe you should look up what an ekklesia actually is?

Maybe you should check out pompous? How about arrogant, maybe smug? Maybe read about that lovely appeal to authority you relied on earlier. :hammer: Maybe you should address the arguments against you, rather than ignoring them and making new ones. Perhaps you should talk WITH not TO people, then it would be easier to take you serious.

Perhaps you can't.

Here is a good start..

http://bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

OOoooo Ahhhh sparklies... I see the lights...

Hey doofus, show me where my comprehension is wrong, stop implying I'm an idiot and ignorant of the word and show me my error or shut up. I've not been out of context of the meaning of the word and have supported my positions. If the best you can do to "put me in my place" is make empty assertions then you must be pretty insecure in your position.

In the end, you have been sold a non-Biblical bill of goods that forms the core of your faith..


As evidenced by all the biblical references I've made you've ignored.

is it poor debate skills?

Or is it cowardice?

It's not honest discussion, whichever it is.

Good luck.

 

[HisServant]

And yet you still have to face Christ sending the Apostles/Disciples out to establish said Ekklesia...

An Ekklesia is not something that can be established... an Ekklesia is something that results from CHRISTS calling of his sheep. Hence Christ started calling together HIS ekklesia with Peter being the first (hence rock).

And that is where you have your problem of comprehending scripture.

For example, in ancient Greece, the King would call an Ekklesia of all the citizens to come and organize themselves and deal with civic issues. It was usually the older men that took up roles of leadership based upon respect... hence we have ELDERS in the ekklesia.. appointed by the ekklesia, etc. i.e. the language of the New Testament is very consistent with this form of organization. It is the antithesis of a hierarchical organization.

Hence, Christ's church is SELF ORGANIZING.. it cannot be 'founded'. The apostles jobs were to declare witness to what Jesus had done and to teach what the Holy Spirit instructed them to teach. But their ability and fitfulness to teach was at the behest of the ekklesia and they could reject an apostles teachings if they saw fit.

 

[Nihilo]

"COME UNTO ME, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

We are commanded to repentance and to obedience.

Both repentance and obedience is difficult, and heavy. Repentance and obedience can only be done by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which is why we must believe in Him. When we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, we receive Him, and He is the Holy Spirit, and we receive the Holy Spirit, and we believe in the Everlasting Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father.

We enter into His Rest.

Only the Lord Jesus Christ can repent, I cannot do it, and only the Lord Jesus Christ can obey, I cannot do it. Repentance and obedience is difficult and heavy, but the Yoke of the Lord Jesus Christ is easy and light. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, be under His Yoke, and enter into His Rest. After that it's Light.

It's Easy.

 

[Cruciform]

Jesus assembled an Ekklesia...not an institution...

False Dilemma Fallacy.


For any genuinely interested and honest readers:

Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium: What Did Jesus Teach?
The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church
The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church
The Case for Catholic Ecclesiology
What Does "Church" Mean?
Church Hierarchy Is Not a Corruption​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+