Posted on 03/23/2007 5:54:47 PM PDT by NYer
Then why's there a vote among the cardinals??? Does the Holy Spirit lead some cardinals to vote against the pope???
YOU: What's your position on Predestination?
God predestinated a Gentile church...And whosoever will come, come...
Me: So Calvinists are wrong? And on a second note, apparently Jews have no place in the Church (that would certainly be news to the first Christians).
YOU: What's your position on Free Will?
We have the free will to accept salvation or reject it...We have the free will to follow God or follow Satan...
Me: No Argument here, except you minimize the importance of Christ's Grace in enabling us to choose to follow God.
YOU: What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
And invention by your church to put a leash on it's members...
Me: Hmm, so Jesus invented it I guess. I recommend reading John 6:22-59 and the Last Supper dialogues.
YOU: What's your position on infant baptism?
There are two types of baptism...On is immersion in water, the other is immersion in the Holy Spirit...Obviously you can't baptize a baby in water, you'll drown him/her...And there's no need to baptize the baby into the Holy Spirit since where there is no knowledge of sin, there is no sin attributed...
Me: In the Bible a number of occasions result in entire households being baptized, it would be logical that infants were in the household, thoughts?
YOU: What's your position on the Rapture?
My position is the bible position...And that of course is that at the fullness of times, when the dispensation of grace is complete, God will call out his espoused bride and bring her to the wedding...
Me: LOL, very tricky there. Is it pre-trib or post-trib or somewhere in between? Or are a lot of Protestant groups wrong as you build your own little Church of Iscool?
YOU: What's your position on Dispensationalism?
My position is the bible's position...My position is Paul's position...
Me: It's a very entertaining response, but ultimately allows a heck of a lot of wiggle room. Cause two people can apparently read the same scripture and come to different conclusions. How do you explain that?
Umm, its called dating. The Letters of St. Clement were written long before Origen lived. I realize chronology of the early Church can be tricky, but you've just confused someone from the first century with someone from the third. And seeing how St. Clements' letters existed before Origen lived, I don't think Origen could have forged them. LOL. Very entertaining understanding of time you have.
One difference is I never suggested the church fell apart...
The only apostle who would have been a legitimate candidate (alive, not too old, whereabouts known with some certainty)
Apparently 80 isn't too old for you guys...And Paul was right there in Rome when Peter died...
So where was the Church until Luther? Are you rehasing the tired old argument that an underground Church of true believers existed that was hunted and persecuted by the Catholic Church. That Cathars, Lollards, Hussites and then Protestants are visible examples of that Church?
"Simon Bar-Jonah" never set foot in Rome. You got the wrong Simon....again.
That tired old Boettner lie again. Hmm, won't seem to die no matter how many times it is refuted.
Heads up, action heating up. You know who is at it again.
You're right, you didn't "suggest" it. You said it categorically, and have said it multiple times.
Don't you begin to see how incomprehensible it is that you're proposing that the church apostatized under a man who (a) was selected by the Roman church to be bishop; (b) knew the Apostles, or at least Peter and Paul, personally; (c) wrote an epistle that was treated as Scripture by a significant number of Christian believers for the next couple of centuries; and (d) died as a martyr for the faith ... while the possibility that you, Iscool, not Clement, might be the one who's really apostate never enters into your head?
And Paul was right there in Rome when Peter died...
There's no definitive proof that Paul's head was still connected to his shoulders by then, as far as I know. In fact, I can show you a couple of Bible verses which seem to indicate it probably wasn't.
But, But . . .
Great response.
The Martyrs are some of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the Faith.
bookmark
The clue is to look for the whereabouts of Mark.
So....why don't you attempt a refute....and we'll let everyone see your silly arguments demolished again. You go ahead and use all your tradition you want......so will I, except I'll back mine up with scripture.....something you will be unable to do.
But, my good friends.......I must leave for a few hours. I will see.....and talk to you later.
Don't bet on it.
Wait, so the Bible says Peter wasn't in Rome. Verse please?
I suppose you didn't hear about the crucified skeleton found beneath the Altar of St. Peter's? Or was that a vile forgery of the Roman Church?
"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -- Sounds like Peter is the Vicar.
I didn't know you were going to be so nit-picky...Of course it's not a church of just Gentiles...It's for anyone...
Me: In the Bible a number of occasions result in entire households being baptized, it would be logical that infants were in the household, thoughts?
Could have been lucky and found no families with little babies but I suspect it's more likely that Jesus and the apostles followed what had been preached and when a person came forward to repent of sin, or call on the name of the Lord, little babies were not required because they couldn't, and they had no knowledge of sin anyway...
Me: LOL, very tricky there. Is it pre-trib or post-trib or somewhere in between? Or are a lot of Protestant groups wrong as you build your own little Church of Iscool?
If you think I'm building my own little church, you don't get out much...
Me: It's a very entertaining response, but ultimately allows a heck of a lot of wiggle room. Cause two people can apparently read the same scripture and come to different conclusions. How do you explain that?
I guess that's cause some folks read the gospels that were written to Jews (salvation is of the Jews) and try to combine them with the scripture that was written to the Gentile church (Paul's epistles)...Paul says you must rightly divide the word of truth...Not combine it all together...
It's only a tired old argument if you are a Catholic that followed Linus and Clement instead of Paul and Timothy...
So one person's truth isn't for another? That is a little dangerous and definitely the slippery slope. By the way, I am still interested in your response to John 6.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.