- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @philokaliaI know.
My only clear memory of Dive debating was from the Eternal Suffering thread where he kept repeating...
"No, NO, don't bring up other scripture; you have to tell me how eternal suffering works from the John 3:16 passage..."
NOTHING else.
And when asked to elaborate on other scriptures that dealt with hell, he also refused.
Jesus loves him.
Now, you have some good points that are going to give me a run for my money, so to speak. I can see it coming.
I promise to remain respectful and dedicated to what I think we SHOULD be dedicated to here - researching out the truth.
I am trying to consider how I should respond to your remark about Orthodoxy.
You see, the recovery is like bringing back all the good and useful vessels that have ended up scattered in many lands. Most of the denominations have something really good.
Like vessels carried away to Babylon, they should be returned to the good land.
Churches should be established according to cities.
Churches should not be established according to specific doctrines.
That is a mistake we have made for centuries.
It has become self defeating.
The Baptist Church - is a deformity.
The Pentecostal Church - is a deformity.
The Presbyterian Church - is also a deformity.
The Catholic Church - is a big deformatity.
Yet within all of these denominiations there may be aspects which are quite true and should be brought back to the proper church ground.
The proper church ground is the city.
Where the Christian live, the locality, should be the ground and jurisdiction of the local church.
This is a weapon against the enemy that God is recovering today, I have been convinced.
The Greek Orthodox Church has partaken of this kind of error also. But within Greek Orthodoxy golden truths should also come back to the proper local ground churches.
16 Feb 18
Right.
I believe in the idea of... "Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essential." I know it is phrased somewhat differently.
I believe there were negotiations and hopeful people in the 20th century who even thought that the totality of Anglicans were going to become "Western Rites Orthodoxy" or some such.
One of the older missionaries at my Church, who has really dediate dher whole life to it, once even told me something like... Martin Luther was a good man because he rebelled against the doctrines fo Catholicism that were exaggerated and deformed and inappropriate, and that Protestantism proves, in a sense, the tyranny and misdeeds of Catholicism.
In a way... We are looking forward to a day when these differences can be healed.
I honestly think that there will be some low key persecution of Christians in the West -- it is already starting very small -- and this will be what drives us to comign more together and making some fo these doctrinal differences irrelevant.
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @rajk999Fair enough point, Rajk.
Forget who or what I am. Anytime you resort to discussing the man rather than the issue / doctrine at hand, you are on the verge of losing the debate. Keep your mind focused on the issue.
We are now talking about how the Catholics reworded the 10 commandments, removing the one that speaks clearly about creating and worshiping idols. This they have done ...[text shortened]... ols to which they bow down will appear to be in keeping with Gods commandments.
Is that true?
But the issue with idols is that they were literally referencing stone and wooden figurines that were worshipped as idols.
I don't worship a painting or a statue. Nor do other Christians.
The veneration of an ikon or a statue is merely a method of showing respect to God.
You know, many peopl elike to wear crosses of all denominations. The cross is a sacred sy mbol and is a comforting presence. It also reminds us of our obligations. Is that an idol?
Originally posted by @philokaliaDid you address the point or do you think Im a damn fool?
Fair enough point, Rajk.
But the issue with idols is that they were literally referencing stone and wooden figurines that were worshipped as idols.
I don't worship a painting or a statue. Nor do other Christians.
The veneration of an ikon or a statue is merely a method of showing respect to God.
You know, many peopl elike to wear crosses ...[text shortened]... ed sy mbol and is a comforting presence. It also reminds us of our obligations. Is that an idol?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI heard an interesting comment on the distinction between crosses and crucifixes, the latter of which depict Jesus nailed to the cross.
Fair enough point, Rajk.
But the issue with idols is that they were literally referencing stone and wooden figurines that were worshipped as idols.
I don't worship a painting or a statue. Nor do other Christians.
The veneration of an ikon or a statue is merely a method of showing respect to God.
You know, many peopl elike to wear crosses ...[text shortened]... ed sy mbol and is a comforting presence. It also reminds us of our obligations. Is that an idol?
The commenter (can’t remember who it was) objected to crucifixes by saying, “My Jesus is no longer on the cross.”
Really liked that comment and haven’t looked at crucifixes in the same way since,
Originally posted by @rajk999I certainly did address it.
Did you address the point or do you think Im a damn fool?
That is absurd to think that they disregard the concept of idols. I said that, but in a way that was actually polite.
Now you are being all HIGH AND MIGHTY, eh, Rajk.
So how about you deliver to us your rant on idols and be as rude and nasty as you want to be. You can drop the pretenses.
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Yeah I guess that is a fun observation about them and witty but... That is not how I see it.
I heard an interesting comment on the distinction between crosses and crucifixes, the latter of which depict Jesus nailed to the cross.
The commenter (can’t remember who it was) objected to crucifixes by saying, “My Jesus is no longer on the cross.”
Really liked that comment and haven’t looked at crucifixes in the same way since,
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaDid the Catholic church change the 10 commandments?
I certainly did address it.
That is absurd to think that they disregard the concept of idols. I said that, but in a way that was actually polite.
Now you are being all HIGH AND MIGHTY, eh, Rajk.
So how about you deliver to us your rant on idols and be as rude and nasty as you want to be. You can drop the pretenses.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @rajk999According to the way in which you interpret Romans 8:13, if the coach of a professional football team exhorted his players to practice harder by saying, “If you’re fat and lazy, you’ll never win a championship,” he would be identifying his players as fat and lazy.
Of course .. Paul is saying
- EVEN IF GODS SPIRIT IS IN YOU
- YOU CAN LIVE IN THE FLESH
And you will die.
Verse 13, imo, is, for lack of better words, an instructional abstraction.
16 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009I dont interpret. You people do that. I take it the way it was said, and if it was said several times the same way then it is pointless to argue with the Bible. Here is another one to argue with along the same lines:
According to the way in which you interpret Romans 8:13, if the coach of a professional football team exhorted his players to practice harder by saying, “If you’re fat and lazy, you’ll never win a championship,” he would be identifying his players as fat and lazy.
Verse 13, imo, is, for lack of better words, an instructional abstraction.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:14-17 KJV)
Paul identified 3 types of born again Christian saints who had the Holy Spirit
1. Those who do good work and will be rewarded
2. Those who do minimal work and will suffer loss but still be saved
3. Those who defile themselves and will be destroyed
This is all in line what Paul and the Apostles say all the time.
- that not everyone who proclaims faith and have the HS are going to enter the Kingdom of God. Here it is clear that some will be destroyed.
But you can continue to argue with Paul if you like.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @rajk999I’m not arguing with Paul. I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of what he wrote. I’ll get back to the verses you most recently identified tonight.
I dont interpret. You people do that. I take it the way it was said, and if it was said several times the same way then it is pointless to argue with the Bible. Here is another one to argue with along the same lines:
[i]If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer l ...[text shortened]... it is clear that some will be destroyed.
But you can continue to argue with Paul if you like.
Originally posted by @romans1009What interpretation? Paul is saying that those Christian Saints who live a life of sin will not enter the Kingdom of God:.. nothing to interpret. You can disagree and argue against it like you insist on doing but thats foolish. Again and again its all over the Bible
I’m not arguing with Paul. I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of what he wrote. I’ll get back to the verses you most recently identified tonight.
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:2-5 KJV)
Assured eternal life for anyone who professes to believe?
Not in the Bible.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @rajk999Your belief expressed in the quoted post and interpretation of Romans 8:13 is refuted by verses immediately preceding verse 13, not to mention numerous other verses and passages in the Bible.
I dont interpret. You people do that. I take it the way it was said, and if it was said several times the same way then it is pointless to argue with the Bible. Here is another one to argue with along the same lines:
[i]If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer l ...[text shortened]... it is clear that some will be destroyed.
But you can continue to argue with Paul if you like.
Here are the verses immediately preceding verse 13:
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.“
(Romans 8:9-12)
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @rajk999<<What interpretation? Paul is saying that those Christian Saints who live a life of sin will not enter the Kingdom of God:.. nothing to interpret. You can disagree and argue against it like you insist on doing but thats foolish. Again and again its all over the Bible.>>
What interpretation? Paul is saying that those Christian Saints who live a life of sin will not enter the Kingdom of God:.. nothing to interpret. You can disagree and argue against it like you insist on doing but thats foolish. Again and again its all over the Bible
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offe ...[text shortened]... s 5:2-5 KJV)
Assured eternal life for anyone who professes to believe?
Not in the Bible.
I don’t disagree with what you wrote here, but it’s not what you said earlier.
People who live a life of sin were not saved to begin with and did not receive the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit. If they were saved and had received the Holy Spirit, their hearts would be changed by God’s Holy Spirit for the better and, while they may occasionally and infrequently still sin because they are still in the flesh, they would not live “a life of sin.”
Read Galatians chapter 5 for elaboration.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @philokaliaRight.
I believe in the idea of... "Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essential." I know it is phrased somewhat differently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That is right. Also I'll tell you what is more serious than disagreements.
For two groups of Christians to be in disagreement in a city is not desireable. But there is something more serious. That is for two groups of Christians to establish divisions called "churches" taking a position on those disagreements as their ground.
Ie. Christians in Fredrick Maryland feel to sing with an accompanying musical instruments.
Another group of Christians in Fredrick Maryland feel singing acapella is more scriptural.
The disagreement may be a problem.
But what is more serious of a problem is for them to divide into "churches" along the lines of the disagreement.
"We establish here a Singing With Instruments Church."
"We establish here a Singing With No Instruments Church."
That is a work of the flesh to establish churches on grounds larger or smaller than a locality.
They could establish a meeting without musical instruments and another meeting with musical instruments.
But still remain the one church in the city, the local church.
Not idle but less serious.