Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,901-6,9506,951-7,0007,001-7,050 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: metmom
You can believe that if you want. It’s just another thing the Catholic church gets wrong, I guess.

If you have a Jewish friend or acquaintance, ask. I will accept your apologies at your leisure. Jewishness is matrilinear; if your father is Jewish and your mother is not, you are not considered Jewish until you convert.

Read the Bible some time. The genealogies are through the father.

We were not talking about genealogies; we were talking about Jewishness being matrilinear after the complete insanity of the claims that the sin nature was only passed on through the father. Completely insane claim and nowhere supported Scripturally. Consider this: if two female eggs are combined to produce human life, does that mean that the child has no sin? Bahble Bleevers (tm) come up with the dumbest things, claiming Scriptural support which is normally found very wanting, or non existent - like this crazy idea.

6,951 posted on 01/10/2011 4:09:56 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6936 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I thought the discussion had to do with the sin nature coming from the father and not about "Jewishness". Scripture says, as Metmom pointed out, that sin came from Adam and because of Adam's sin we are all sinners.

Correct; this unScriptural idea.

This doctrine is quite different from the one about Jesus' lineage going back to the throne of David. We had this discussion back some time ago, and we know that both Mary and Joseph can trace back to David's lineage but only Mary's side was without a curse (Jeconiah) so that Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David.

Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David? God Almighty constricted to human legalities? Oh man, oh man, oh man. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at statements like this.

6,952 posted on 01/10/2011 4:24:09 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6941 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ..
We were not talking about genealogies; we were talking about Jewishness being matrilinear after the complete insanity of the claims that the sin nature was only passed on through the father. Completely insane claim and nowhere supported Scripturally. Consider this: if two female eggs are combined to produce human life, does that mean that the child has no sin? Bahble Bleevers (tm) come up with the dumbest things, claiming Scriptural support which is normally found very wanting, or non existent - like this crazy idea.

No, WE weren't. I was talking about genealogies in Scripture. You were talking about cultural Judaism.

I was talking about the sin nature coming through the father, which is Scriptural. The genealogies listed in Scripture follow through the father.

In Abraham all the nations of the earth are blessed. in *in Sarah*. Not *in Eve all sinned*. Not *sin entered the world through Eve.*.

The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.

I provided the Scripture references to back up my contention that the sin nature comes through the father and yet you're telling me that it is unscriptural.

Where are yours to support YOUR contention that it comes through the mother?

6,953 posted on 01/10/2011 4:29:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6951 | View Replies]

To: metmom
No, WE weren't. I was talking about genealogies in Scripture. You were talking about cultural Judaism.

You guys came up with this craziness about sin only being passed down through the father. And you heckle us about Mary...

I was talking about the sin nature coming through the father, which is Scriptural. The genealogies listed in Scripture follow through the father.

. It says nowhere in Scripture that sin only passes through the father. That single passage in Romans is often used as justification, but it doesn't say that.

In Abraham all the nations of the earth are blessed. in *in Sarah*. Not *in Eve all sinned*. Not *sin entered the world through Eve.*.

Entering the world is not the same as passing it on only by the father.

The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.

Twaddle. If we combine two female eggs to produce a human, are you going to claim that the child is sinless since she has no father? If there is no other reference than the really weak interpretation of Romans 5:12, then Bahble Bleevers (tm) have no justification whatsoever in holding this true. It is not specifically Scripture and it sure cannot be deduced without using what Joseph Smith used to write the Book of Mormon.

I provided the Scripture references to back up my contention that the sin nature comes through the father and yet you're telling me that it is unscriptural.

None of them say what you say it proves.

Where are yours to support YOUR contention that it comes through the mother?

I never said anything of the sort. Read back through the thread and see. I just said words to the effect that this father-transmitted "sin nature" was unScriptural and therefore you guys at least should have nothing to do with it, and should really denounce it since it is not found in the Bible.

6,954 posted on 01/10/2011 4:51:04 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6953 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.

Amen.

It's amazing how even "catechized" Roman Catholic apologists seem to be ignorant of basic Christianity. What do they learn in those catechism classes, if not the truth found in the Bible?

6,955 posted on 01/10/2011 5:54:14 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6953 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Still waiting for Scripture references to show that the sin nature enters through the woman........

You can’t legitimately argue that I have no point because you think that I have no Scripture with which to back up my statements, when you are making statements that you aren’t backing up with anything substantial, much less any Scripture.


6,956 posted on 01/10/2011 6:02:07 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6954 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Still waiting for Scripture references to show that the sin nature enters through the woman........

Wait all you want. You made the claim and have no Scripture to prove it that sin is exclusively of the father. You are the Bible Believer (tm) and therefore when you make a claim, you must prove it.

You can’t legitimately argue that I have no point because you think that I have no Scripture with which to back up my statements, when you are making statements that you aren’t backing up with anything substantial, much less any Scripture.

This is the second time that you have said that I have said that sin nature (whatever that is) passes through the mother. I never said anything of the kind. I have repeatedly challenged you to justify your erroneous belief that sin is only passed through the father, though. You are the Bible Believer (tm). Prove it from Scripture. Romans 5:12 does not prove anything of the kind. Do you have anything else?

6,957 posted on 01/10/2011 6:11:54 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6956 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
This is a continuation of my post 6930 responding to one long post of yours.

grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas

These vehicles of grace, of course, are in no way exclusive. If one makes use of a particular form of spirituality, good. If he makes use of another, that is hs choice also. The necessary sacraments fopr a baptized Christian are the Confession as needed and the Eucharist "as often as you shall eat this" (1 Cor. 11:26).

whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life ... is under a curse

... is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written. I understand that an anathema is an umpleasant thing to be under, but it is there, not unlike canonical scripture, for your benefit. Compare:

James 2 Trent (Session 6)
[22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
The doctrine of Faith Alone, whether in its wooly "classic Protestantism" form or in the crass despiritualization of modern Protestantism is contrary to the direct instruction of the Bible.

Your FM once again ... i included Rm. 4 already

I don't know what FM is, and your link is not helping. You did include Romans 4 now, and I explained in the first part of the responding post that Romans 4 is wholly in the context of works of the law, so it does not address the issue of the role of good works.

Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works

All this looks like an attempt to verbalize "We are not saved by faith alone" while avoiding a direct contradiction to the Protestant heresy, each flavor of which still says "we are saved by faith alone".

evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America

Yes, it is. It is also responsible for the de-Christianization of America underway today. I would agree that Protestantism produced some good fruit, especially in its earlier and less "evangelical" forms. Protestantism was an experiment. Man learned the Protestantism's lessons. It is now falling apart because the experiment is over. The traditional Protestant denominations, Presbyterian, Congregational Anglican and Methodist -- those that built America -- are tapering off; they are being replaced by a collection of self-styled communities that function as social clubs where a boring sermon Sunday morning is a price of admission.

The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works.

You derive the imputed character of grace from Romans 4:7, but that is a citation from the Old Testament, and brought in by St. Paul to contrast grace to the works of circumcision (v 10). The infused and transformational grace is taught everywhere else in the New Testament, including in the thematically close to the Romans Galatians: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal 6:15). Jesus, of course, minced no words on that: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).

you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works

St. Paul refers to the crossing of the desert described in Gen 12 as well as the birth of Isaac, and St. James-- to the sacrifice of Isaac. As St. James explains, all these are instances where works of faith cooperated with confessional faith and made the faith perfect. So the statement that the Scripture "never says that justification was procured by any kind of works" is simply not so.

if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression

There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others. The fact is that justification is a process that typically lasts a lifetime. Moments of pure declarative faith are parts of justification,. They are not the whole of justification.

If you pardon a long quote:

One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). 1This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.

Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

First, the book of Hebrews tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.

But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive." The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.

Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.

Verbalize all you want -- that statement still confirms that works are a necessary component of faith.

“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)

So, what is unclear about that?

it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man!

Of course grace is not by any merit of man. Where did I say any different? But grace is not faith -- obvious in the case of a child you yourself bring up. It is true that faith is our response to grace, -- but so are our works (Eph 2:10).

What this [Col 1:24] does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome

Why doesn't it (I assume you mean "treasure of merit")? St. Paul says that his suffering in some mysterious way builds up the Church and united with the suffering of Christ. But Christ's suffering is our treasure. Christ asked us to "build treasure in heaven" (Luke 12:33). Col 1 makes that request tangible to us. There are plenty other quotes from Paul where he not only describes his own suffering by urges others to "mortify the deeds of the flesh".

The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life

St. Dismas did works of faith and mercy, and Christ promised him eternal life. He defended the innocent Christ, did penance for his sin, and asked Christ to "remember him". Perfect Catholic conversion story, that includes in one whole faith and good works.

You make works being the cause of justification

Grace alone is the cause of justification. I never said any different.

[your] attempt to restrict [salvific works] to motive is untenable

So you say, but I see no reason it must be so. It is rather typical for Paul to contrast works of the law to faith and grace and go on to urge people to do good works. Making that distinction I am in good company.

Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life

You liek to insert that "merit" everywhere. Works merit salvation in the simple sense that works are the basius on which sovereign Christ grans us salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). No, Christ does not owe us anything. The Church does nto teach that He does. The Church simply takes His words at the face value.

grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast

Indeed, grace is not of works and we shouild not boast of our works as if it is them that produced grace. We are certainly saved through faith as it is through faith that we do the works that God had prepared for us (Eth. 2:10). This passage is a perfect expression of Catholicism, and it flatly cotnradicts "Faith Alone"

More later...

6,958 posted on 01/10/2011 6:21:27 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6657 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.

Amen. It's amazing how even "catechized" Roman Catholic apologists seem to be ignorant of basic Christianity. What do they learn in those catechism classes, if not the truth found in the Bible?

Izzat so? Prove it from Scripture. You guys make these idiot claims that Christians have never believed. Is the best that you have Romans 5:12? It doesn't say what you guys think it says: it says what it actually says. You bleat about Biblical truths and can't even get it right. Lay it out here, Dr. E. Present your Biblical truths.

6,959 posted on 01/10/2011 6:31:18 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6955 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; metmom; RnMomof7; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; caww; boatbums; bkaycee; 1000 silverlings; ...
Izzat so? Prove it from Scripture.

You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.

Will Rome's opinion work for you?

True, this wouldn't be the first time a Roman Catholic apologist has displayed ignorance of his/her own catechism. Understandable, given the poor catechizing of so many Roman Catholics, but nonetheless, sad that it occurs so often.

FROM MARK'S OWN RCC CATECHISM...

403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Did you get that, Mark? Adam's sin. From Adam. Adam "transmitted to us a sin which we are all born afflicted."

This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?

(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)

6,960 posted on 01/10/2011 6:59:45 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6959 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Again, this does not pan out in reality as is evidenced in history and in scripture. Let's deal with the scriptural aspects -- note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith. Note also that Paul writes to the Romans where he was not the apostle to spread the faith,

Obviously Paul was not the first to share the Gospel with them but he most assuredly went there with the intent to lead others to faith in Christ and to train them in the truths Jesus had revealed to him. See:

Romans 1:11-17
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Their "rule of faith" was that they believed in the Gospel of Christ and followed their bishops who were expected to know -- hence the bishops kept in touch across the churches.

Those that could, read aloud to every church the writings that were circulated by the disciples. Many copies were obviously made so that each local church had what they needed. The bishops were appointed first of all by the apostles, and only after making sure the doctrine was fully understood and their lives were sold-out to Christ. The way the faith spread so rapidly, no one could keep track of everywhere that the name of Christ was heard. I'm sure the bishops would have liked to stay in touch, but without the means we have today, I seriously doubt they kept track of everyone. I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us.

I fully understand your need to assert what your church has concluded about its authority and you have bound yourself to it so you have no choice but to defend it. What I, instead, am trying to say is that we are not one because of the denominational labels we place on ourselves but rather by the faith that is within our hearts. We can be in unity of faith as we are all part of the universal body of believers in Christ. It is this that sets us apart, not what we call ourselves.

6,961 posted on 01/10/2011 7:14:30 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6944 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Izzat so? Prove it from Scripture.

You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.

Romans 5:12 does not say that original sin is passed from the father only, in spite of your gloating about women. Let's see what you have now.

403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Where does it say that sin is transmitted from father only to offspring, leaving the mother out of it? It doesn't. The Catechism is in accord with the Bible. So where does that leave the Bahble Bleevers (tm)? On the outside of Christianity looking in, right? When two women's eggs are combined (in the near future) creating a human, are you saying that the resulting girl will be sinless since she has no father? Are you saying that Mary cannot be sinless, but your Reformed girl can?

This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?

In order to prove something, you actually have to prove it. Your posts are in error and do not reflect Christianity. They do not even reflect Scripture. Prove to us that sin is transmitted through the father only using Scripture, if you please. You were the one who bragged openly that you learned this through the FR RF. Where does your learning come from? Where are the proofs? Where is the Scripture that you guys say that you only follow? You aren't kidding us on this are you?

(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)

No; we reverence St. Paul. We worship God. We have not reversed it as so many children of the Reformation have.

6,962 posted on 01/10/2011 7:34:21 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6960 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; boatbums; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww; count-your-change; ..
This is the second time that you have said that I have said that sin nature (whatever that is) passes through the mother. I never said anything of the kind. I have repeatedly challenged you to justify your erroneous belief that sin is only passed through the father, though. You are the Bible Believer (tm). Prove it from Scripture. Romans 5:12 does not prove anything of the kind. Do you have anything else?

Of course you said something of that kind. You keep contesting that the sin nature comes through the father.

In post 6,952 where bb states that I'm correct about where the sin nature comes from, you said it was unscriptural.

In post 6,951 you are stating that Jewishness is matrilineal and that's why the sin nature doesn't come through the father.

In post 6,932 you point out that Jewishness is matrilineal to contest the sin nature coming through the father.

You have said by default that the sin nature comes through the mother. Just who, pray tell, do you think it comes through if not through the father?

6,963 posted on 01/10/2011 7:40:14 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6957 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg
You guys make these idiot claims that Christians have never believed.

Christians have believed it. Catholics (apparently) haven't.

"Catholic" and "Christian" are not synonymous. Do not conflate the two.

6,964 posted on 01/10/2011 7:42:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6959 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Maybe they think it comes from the black underside of the white hankys?


6,965 posted on 01/10/2011 7:43:09 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6963 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Of course you said something of that kind. You keep contesting that the sin nature comes through the father.

Only from the father, sure.

You have said by default that the sin nature comes through the mother. Just who, pray tell, do you think it comes through if not through the father?

Do not put words into my mouth or attempt to interpret my posts as you guys interpret Scripture. I am asking you to prove your statement that sin only passes through the father to the offspring. Well, can you? Let's have it.

6,966 posted on 01/10/2011 7:49:56 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6963 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Catholic" and "Christian" are not synonymous. Do not conflate the two.

Since they are identical, I don't see the problem.

6,967 posted on 01/10/2011 7:50:57 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6964 | View Replies]

To: Quix

6,968 posted on 01/10/2011 7:56:16 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6965 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
II Cor. 5:21 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.

Yup, might be. Could be. May be. Depending on our Christian conduct which will be Judged by the Almighty.

I was just waiting for someone to finally say this! It is funny - ironic - to me that whenever the Scripture uses a word that implies an assurance of some sort, the naysayers always come back with this. "Might be" - yeah but it didn't say will be. "Shall have" - yeah, but it didn't say does have. It is just playing semantics "Password" games.

Like I've said before, go right ahead and trust in your good deeds to usher you into Heaven. "Oh no", you say, "I have faith, too!". But just what kind of faith is it that places the burden on the believer to do a list of works in addition to the faith and then, if there is an instance of sin and death before absolution and penance, ALL the good works and faith made no difference at all and the believer ends up in the same place as the depraved atheist??? Just how much did the faith really mean?

I could use terms like impious boasting and hubris here (I am a million times as humble as thou art...). But I won't, because I would simply like to point out that since you are human, you don't. You cannot. You may try and you may succeed or you may fail, but I will submit to you (not evening knowing you - I'd bet any amount though) that you have not surrendered yourself completely to God. There are very few people who even come close. I know that I haven't, not by a long shot. I still have more the RDA of pride and I admit it. I do not boast of what I do not have.

It is not impious boasting to trust in the promises of God. To not do so is the grievous sin of pride. As long as I have this body of this death (Romans 7:24) hanging around it will be a battle, I know, but through Christ I have the victory and am delivered from the sentence of death. By the way, the term "body of death" had to do with a Roman torture that they used to execute someone painfully and slowly. They tied a dead body to the living man and as the body slowly rotted, the live man slowly got sicker and sicker and eventually died - it just took a long gruesome time. Yuk...it is so hard to think of the unbelievable acts of evil people can think up.

So my works will be held up to God's judgment and the penalty for my sins has already been paid in full by the blood of Christ and I will not be judged guilty of them. It will be an acquittal by God's grace through faith. And I know that not all the things that I have done for Christ are all gold, silver and precious stones, but I will watch those that aren't burn, trusting in the righteous judge and, in the end, all the rewards I may be given I will lay at the feet of Jesus who alone is worthy to receive all glory, honor and praise for all eternity!

6,969 posted on 01/10/2011 8:09:34 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6950 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; metmom
This doctrine is quite different from the one about Jesus' lineage going back to the throne of David. We had this discussion back some time ago, and we know that both Mary and Joseph can trace back to David's lineage but only Mary's side was without a curse (Jeconiah) so that Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David.

Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David? God Almighty constricted to human legalities? Oh man, oh man, oh man. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at statements like this.

I don't know whether to keep up this silly charade of a discussion or go find someone else to talk to. Perhaps you didn't know this, but, Jesus DID have legal HUMAN right to the throne of David. You may not care but God took the trouble to spell out Jesus' lineage in both Matthew (Joseph)and Luke (Mary). Didn't you ever wonder why?

6,970 posted on 01/10/2011 8:22:23 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6952 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; metmom

Scriptural discernment tells Protestants and apparently most Roman Catholics that the sin nature is passed from Adam to his children, and thus from the father to his off spring.

You’ve been given Scripture and your own catechism.

Now show us where Scripture, your catechism or anyone but you says man’s sin nature comes from the mother.

You’re quick with the questions, Mark, but so far, you’re void of answers. If you’re so certain we’re wrong, you must have some evidence to back-up your claims. Where is it?


6,971 posted on 01/10/2011 8:23:59 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6962 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

One of my favorite new worship songs... Love the Getty hymns. They were at our church last year.


6,972 posted on 01/10/2011 8:25:11 PM PST by pollywog ("O Thou who changest not, abide with me.".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; MarkBsnr
Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David? God Almighty constricted to human legalities? Oh man, oh man, oh man. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at statements like this.

Why are you introducing strawmen again?

Nobody said that God was constricted to man made human legalities. God is, however, constricted to the promises HE made.

And it was God who established the legality that gave Jesus the legitimate human right to the throne, thus it was not a *human* legality.

The promise to David was that the throne was to be given to one of David's descendants.

6,973 posted on 01/10/2011 8:36:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6970 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

Mark is also quick to tell us we’re wrong, but not so quick to demonstrate that he is right.

He demands Scriptural support, and yet in true Catholic fashion, when it is provided, it is dismissed off hand with NOTHING to back up their contentions.

They reject our Scriptural support and offer nothing in return.

This whole issue of the sin nature coming through the mother is nothing more than a bid to lay claim to the involvement of Mary in the process of salvation beyond dispute. We’ve seen it before. The Catholic church has tried it before in its deliberate mistranslation of the Hebrew in Genesis3:15. Anything to shoehorn in on God’s plan for mankind and rob the glory from Christ and God.

It’s really pathetic the unscriptural nonsense invoked to support their worship of Mary.

ANYTHING but Christ alone.


6,974 posted on 01/10/2011 8:45:54 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6971 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; metmom; MarkBsnr
It's amazing how even "catechized" Roman Catholic apologists seem to be ignorant of basic Christianity. What do they learn in those catechism classes, if not the truth found in the Bible?

Well this is what they teach in the Catechism regarding the sin nature:

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

6,975 posted on 01/10/2011 8:52:56 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6955 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ..
I've become increasingly convinced

that some folks . . .

for both psychodynamic and spiritual reasons

seem to be quite . . . fiercely . . .

possessive of and protective of . . .

the burrs under their saddles

or their curious affinity for strange pine-cone fetishes.

Evidently they LIKE every excuse they can find

for

Photobucket

OR throwing dust in the air and pretending every dust particle is a golden dew drop of saintly wisdom.

or

For throwing rocks and pretending they are nuggest of warm fuzzy charitable inclusive winsome truth.

or

For throwing out a whole NEW set of rabid straw dogs and pretending they are innocent friendly putty cats merely trying for a warm snuggle.

It's interesting occasionally from a psychological or sociological perspective. Mostly it's weary-ing because so much of it is sooooooo irrational; soooooooooo UNBiblical and soooooooooo unhistorical while too often hysterical to the max.

6,976 posted on 01/10/2011 9:11:57 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6974 | View Replies]

To: metmom
This whole issue of the sin nature coming through the mother is nothing more than a bid to lay claim to the involvement of Mary in the process of salvation.

Well certainly... as it is just one of the pillars that props her up in their belief system. If those pillars are brought down...she no longer can take predominance in their 'Goddess' worship of her. The Image would fall but then Christ would have His sole rightful place...which He shares with no one...He's omnipotence would reign supreme as it should.

6,977 posted on 01/10/2011 9:14:18 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6974 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; metmom; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
I am busy with another post, but briefly, the context in 1Cor. 11:17-32 is not at all what the physical elements that are consumed consists of, but what the communal supper commemorating Christ's utterly selfless death is to consist of as to practice, relating to its correspondence to the sacrifice of Christ for His body, the church.

The problem was that in the feast of charity, which was an actual communal meal, some members of the body were being treated like lepers:

"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. {21} For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. " (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)

Paul's criticism of them is that they are really not commemorating the Lord's unselfish sacrifice of Himself due to the selfish manner in which they are practicing it.

He then states the instructions given in instituting the supper, and that "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till he come." {26}

Christians manifest His death for them by death to self in serving God and therefor others. Thus they were not manifesting recognition of Jesus death for them because they were not caring for the life of others. And because as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till he come," therefore the next verse says,

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. {28} But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. {29} For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. " (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Examining primarily concerns how you were treating each others, which recalls Jesus words about being reconciled before offering sacrifice, (Mt. 5:23,24) But there is nothing in here about the composition of the physical bread they ate, but not discerning or judging the "Lord's body" refers to either effectively denying what His death represents by their selfishness, as per v. 20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper" - or by failing to recognize the other members as part of the body and to them justice according.

Paul next reveals that this miscelebration was the reason that they were being chastened and judged, including death, which capital punishment for lack of care is consistent with O.T. penalty about not caring for the poor. (Ex. 22:22-24)

In further confirmation that this was the issue, Paul provides the remedy needed to avoid chastening, which was not by recognizing that the bread was really Jesus flesh, but by rightly judging what the sacrifice of Christ which they commemorated represented and acting accordingly; "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. " (1 Corinthians 11:33,34) "

This corresponds to what Paul said in the previous chapter, that "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. " (1 Corinthians 10:17) For the body of Christ to be in communion with Jesus broken body and shed blood in His death is to be communally consistent with Him who died for us and purchased us with His blood.

"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: {15} And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. " (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

In the next chapter Paul further elaborates on the interdependence of the body, For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1Cor. 12:12,25)

And how superficial we are in this today. go.


6,978 posted on 01/10/2011 9:26:06 PM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6942 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
  1. Paul's letter to the Romans. My point was that Paul was not the apostle who first went to the Romans, yet wrote to them an epistle advising... This is a strong indication of early Church "hierarchy" or "organization" which negates your statement So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith".
  2. Reading aloud -- true, yet remember that those writings were not uniformly available and writings are also liable to be distorted at times if one is not careful, especially in the pre-Internet days and as you point out, the Bishops were appointed by the Apostles.
  3. I seriously doubt they kept track of everyone. -- of "everyone" no, but don't forget that most of the conversions if not nearly all of them were in the cities of the Roman Empire or Parthian Empire. The faith expanded rapidly among the urbanites but the rural people (pagan = people of the fields, rural people) held out for longer.
  4. I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us. That feeling does you credit and since you hold to the Nicene Creed, I reciprocate the same feelings for you.
  5. I fully understand your need to assert -- I strongly resent that statement. I may not be very good at dogma or philosophy, but my post above was STRICTLY historical except for the note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith.. I intend limiting myself here to the historical sphere that I know well -- I will leave the philosophical, religious discussion to my betters. And in the historical sphere of facts one sees regular and strong communication in the Mediterranean continent -- one could send a message between Hadrians Wall and Ctesiphon in a week or two. Even in the Parthian Empire, which strung from the Tigris right up to the Uighur Empires in Zinjiang, communication was regular, predictable in time and accesible. Actually, going back, even the Empire of Cyrus the Great of Persia that stretched from India to Greece and Egypt did have excellent communication in a matter of weeks (Cyrus i.e. Khurosh inaugurated the pony mail!)
  6. What does this mean for the One True Church statement -- it means that:
    1. people throughout believed that they were part of the One true Church
    2. Were there a day-to-day orders? No -- and that was not true of the Church or even of government until the invention of the telegraph. Prior to that, there was regular communication.
    3. There was regular communication between bishops through the Roman and Parthian Empires, just as there were regular communication between Praefects and governors in the Roman, Parthian Empires. These were not of course yahoo Messenger level speed :) but would have been with a few weeks. As an aside, note that communication after the fall of the Roman Empire in 430 AD was WORSE -- the Pope in the 9th century was less able to communicate with bishops in Britain and Cyrene than his predecessor in the 1st century. In fact, by the 9th century, the Western and Eastern Churches were barely able to communicate due to language problems, which was not the case in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
    4. Now though the communication took weeks and with the back and forth, tossing out a bad priest could take some time, STILL people felt that connection to the ONE Church -- you see it in the beliefs of the Naimans, Mongols who were converted to Christianity in the 3rd-7th centuries, you see it in the 2000 year old Christian communities in Kerala, South India.
    5. Church bishops were responsible to God and administratively to the council, deferring to the bishops of the pentarchy.
    6. In those pre-Internet days, the ways to know that someone was telling you the truth was to ask him where he learnt His truth and go back in time to the source. This is borne out in how an Arab until the 70s would introduce him "I am Abu bin Mussa bin Muawiyah bin Kadeer bin ... " -- documents could be incorrect or spurious --> what proof do I have for this? I take the example of the Old Believers in Russia. The only way they knew something was correct was that this was what their bishops said and their bishops were entrusted as their shepherds
    7. The "Bible" was not compiled and there were a number of books circulating -- some valid and inspired, some valid and now we regard them as not canon (The SHepherd of Hermas etc), some were definitely spurious (The Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas). The Bible or even the writings they gathered were not their "rule of faith" for the simple reason that they were not "verifiable", but their bishops and priests WERE. To all societies before the printing press, the oral instructor's worth and "verifiable ancestry" was far more important than any text he carried.
    8. The rule of faith was that they were people of the book, and they looked to their Bishop to shepherd them correctly.

6,979 posted on 01/11/2011 1:56:57 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6961 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
The problem was that in the feast of charity, which was an actual communal meal, some members of the body were being treated like lepers: err. where do you get that in 1 Cor 11?
[20]When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper
[21] For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk
[22] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
[24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
[25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
[30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
[31] But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
[32] But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
[33] Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
[34] If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
You are right in verse 20, St. Paul reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians;

In verse 23, 24 & 25, he clearly says that
Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me
This is pretty EXPLICIT in saying this IS my body.

Verse 27 is also EXPLICIT in what it says Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. -- you cannot get more explicit than that

This is clearly stating that :
  1. In verses 23-25, he says that Jesus said that the bread and wine IS His body and blood and that these should be done often.
  2. In verse 27, Paul says clearly that if you eat/drink unworthily, you are not just guilty of bread and wine but guilty of the very body and blood of the Lord

    The selfishness and unworthiness of the Colossians were criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating of the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament.

    ==========================================================================================================================================

    Paul wrote this letter 1 Corinthians to correct what he saw as erroneous views in the Corinthian church. In chapter 11 he specifically chastises them for their behaviour, noting that if they do not maintain the right decorum which is necessary to eat the Lord's supper.

    One cannot read lines that say Take ye, and eat: this is my body, or whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. and say there is nothing in here about the composition of the physical bread they at

    You are correct that Paul next reveals that this miscelebration was the reason that they were being chastened and judged because Paul says For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

    Verses 30 - 34 do not link to your statement of which was not by recognizing that the bread was really . It just says when you come together for the agape feast, wait for one another.

    ==========================================================================================================================================

    In Chapter 10 Paul starts with the description of Baptism and eating the same spiritual food. He points out how 5. But with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the desert. and [9] Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. (NOTE: "boatbums, bkaycee" -- this is a good verse for us to reference when discussing with our Oneness Pentecostal friends as this verse clearly indicates that the Israelites tempted Christ i.e. GOD in the desert, hence saying Christ is God)

    In fact, Chapter 10 has these verses
    [16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
    And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
    [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread
    Here Paul states that because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread

6,980 posted on 01/11/2011 3:58:59 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6978 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
In Chapter 12, I agree with what you said that Paul further elaborates on the interdependence of the body, For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1Cor. 12:12,25)
[26] And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
[27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.
[28] And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors/teachers; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
[29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers/doctors?
[30] Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?


==========================================================================================================================================

In Chapter 15, verse 29 has this

KJV: 29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
NIV: 29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
NASB 29Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
6,981 posted on 01/11/2011 4:05:30 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6978 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
repeating specifically

You said I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us.

That feeling does you credit and demonstrates the love of Christ that is in you.

I reciprocate the same feelings for you, but I'm not as nice as you are :)
6,982 posted on 01/11/2011 4:11:04 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6979 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; metmom
Mark Jewishness is matrilinear; if your father is Jewish and your mother is not, you are not considered Jewish until you convert.

--> good point, because Jesus was Jewish right, from His Mother's side. If Jewishness is through the paternal line....
6,983 posted on 01/11/2011 4:16:47 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6951 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ..
"Catholic" and "Christian" are not synonymous. Do not conflate the two.

Since they are identical, I don't see the problem.

Wow. You consider the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy Christians?

What about some hit man for the Mafia? What about those priests who molest children?

Show me where, in the Bible, believers are called *Catholics*. Followers of Christ are called Christian by Scripture

Acts 11:26
...and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

You can claim all you want that Catholics are by default Christians, but considering what some Catholics live like, I'd hardly call them *followers of Christ* or *little Christs*.

See, that's the problem with Catholicism. It calls people Christians based on baptism, not based on genuine rebirth demonstrated by lifestyle.

By conflating the two, you end up being put in a position where people who engage in all kinds of evil are labeled *Christian* by the Catholic church based on nothing more than ceremony. And this from the church which demands that people add works to their faith to be saved?

People who don't walk the talk are NOT Christians, no matter how observant a Catholic they are.

Granted there are likely to be a few real Christians in the Catholic church, but based on my experience with Catholics on the every day lay person level, they're few and far between.

And I've never had the privilege, thank God, of dealing with the Catholics on the clergy level, which is even worse.

Go ahead. Call pro-aborts and child molesters *Christian*. It lends so much to your credibility.

The fact that you equate the the term *Catholic* and the term *Christian* and don't see a problem with that, by your own admission, demonstrates a degree of spiritual blindness that is staggering.

6,984 posted on 01/11/2011 6:42:34 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6967 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Quix
Don't Catholics anoint with oil during Last Rites?

What about this?

Holy Water, Oil, Soil & Incense

"Our Lady of Lourdes plastic water bottle is filled with 6 oz. of Lourdes water. Highly filtered and drinkable with a twist off cap, this water is imported from Lourdes, France."

6,985 posted on 01/11/2011 6:48:49 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6968 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

The sin nature still comes through the man.

Show us where in Scripture it states that the sin nature comes through the woman.


6,986 posted on 01/11/2011 6:52:01 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6983 | View Replies]

To: metmom; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww

I asked you specifically about Jewishness.


6,987 posted on 01/11/2011 7:03:20 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6986 | View Replies]

To: metmom; MarkBsnr
See, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, MEthodists, Pentecostals, Baptists are all Christians. They affirm the Nicene Creed.

Now your group is not Christian. See, that's the difference.

Catholic,Lutheran, Orthodox,Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Baptists = Christian groups(all affirm the Nicene creed).

your group = not Christian.
6,988 posted on 01/11/2011 7:06:53 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6984 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Our Lady of Lourdes plastic water bottle is filled with 6 oz. of Lourdes water. Highly filtered and drinkable with a twist off cap, this water is imported from Lourdes, France."


"I want to know why it was necc. to make the Mary figure glow-in-the-dark, and to have her suspended in the Lourdes water. Does she suddenly start glowing, a.k.a. functions like a dosimiter (radiation monitoring device) if the vial springs a leak?"
-- Alex Murphy, February 6, 2007


Lourdes WaterTM is now available in both ready-mix concentrate and full-strength formulas. Comes with a free sprayer.

6,989 posted on 01/11/2011 7:33:08 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6985 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; metmom
I asked you specifically about Jewishness.

Why? Do you, as a resident (citizen?) of Poland, have a problem with Jewishness?
Poles Confront the Dark Side [lifting the silence around anti-semitism in Poland]

6,990 posted on 01/11/2011 7:41:38 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6987 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...

I was discussing the sin nature coming through the man. That transcends nationality.

Try to stay on topic.

Where’s the Scripture verse that says the sin nature comes through the woman?


6,991 posted on 01/11/2011 7:56:21 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6987 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

So, according to you, someone is a Christian based on lip service to a creed?

Interesting.

Was Jesus wrong then when He said it was through Him?

What about Pelosi, Kennedy, Mafia hit men, and the molesting priests? If they agree with the creed, they’re Christians? Would Jesus act like any of them?


6,992 posted on 01/11/2011 7:58:57 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6988 | View Replies]

To: metmom

gag.


6,993 posted on 01/11/2011 9:40:01 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6985 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Yup, might be. Could be. May be. Depending on our Christian conduct which will be Judged by the Almighty.

I was just waiting for someone to finally say this!

Just giving you the real Scriptures, not recent and novel interpretations of them.

Like I've said before, go right ahead and trust in your good deeds to usher you into Heaven.

I've corrected you on this many times. I see that I have to yet again. I never said that my good deeds could usher me to Heaven.

So my works will be held up to God's judgment and the penalty for my sins has already been paid in full by the blood of Christ and I will not be judged guilty of them. It will be an acquittal by God's grace through faith. And I know that not all the things that I have done for Christ are all gold, silver and precious stones, but I will watch those that aren't burn, trusting in the righteous judge and, in the end, all the rewards I may be given I will lay at the feet of Jesus who alone is worthy to receive all glory, honor and praise for all eternity!

Even Paul does not agree with that, as I have showed you. Certainly that is not the Gospel.

6,994 posted on 01/11/2011 10:18:27 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6969 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I don't know whether to keep up this silly charade of a discussion or go find someone else to talk to. Perhaps you didn't know this, but, Jesus DID have legal HUMAN right to the throne of David. You may not care but God took the trouble to spell out Jesus' lineage in both Matthew (Joseph)and Luke (Mary). Didn't you ever wonder why?

The promise was made by God that the Messiah would be of the line of David. There is no legality about it. He kept His word to us. Fulfillment of the prophecy, not legality.

6,995 posted on 01/11/2011 10:20:07 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6970 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg
In order to prove something, you actually have to prove it. Your posts are in error and do not reflect Christianity. They do not even reflect Scripture. Prove to us that sin is transmitted through the father only using Scripture, if you please. You were the one who bragged openly that you learned this through the FR RF. Where does your learning come from? Where are the proofs? Where is the Scripture that you guys say that you only follow? You aren't kidding us on this are you?

I very seldom make reference to "Catholic Answers" but I thought you might be interested the following:

"This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies. They knew no suffering, they knew no disease, they knew no death. Before the fall, their bodies would not have been subject to cancer or to Alzheimer’s disease or heart attacks or muscular dystrophy or sickle cell anemia or any one of a host of other diseases. But ours are."

Catholic Answers - Sin Through Adam (He was the man wasn't he?)

6,996 posted on 01/11/2011 10:21:36 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6962 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Scriptural discernment tells Protestants and apparently most Roman Catholics that the sin nature is passed from Adam to his children, and thus from the father to his off spring.do not prove your point. Scripture says that sin entered the world through one man. You are taking it a step further beyond Scripture. That is not sola, Dr. E.

You’ve been given Scripture...

Which does not say what you tell me it says.

...and your own catechism.

Why is an anti Catholic using the Catechism to prove their own faith and not relying on Scripture.

Now show us where Scripture, your catechism or anyone but you says man’s sin nature comes from the mother.

It doesn't say that it comes specifically from either. You made the claim, you prove it.

You’re quick with the questions, Mark, but so far, you’re void of answers. If you’re so certain we’re wrong, you must have some evidence to back-up your claims. Where is it?

I am not the one claiming anything - you are. You are a sola believer - well, prove it with sola.

6,997 posted on 01/11/2011 10:25:44 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6971 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Why are you introducing strawmen again? Nobody said that God was constricted to man made human legalities. God is, however, constricted to the promises HE made.

The point was made about the legality of Jesus. It is not and never was a point about legality; it was about God's fulfillment of God's promise to us.

The promise to David was that the throne was to be given to one of David's descendants.

Correct; no legalities involved.

6,998 posted on 01/11/2011 10:27:47 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6973 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Mark is also quick to tell us we’re wrong, but not so quick to demonstrate that he is right.

You guys are sola; well prove your claim with sola. I didn't make a claim; you guys did. Well, prove it with sola.

They reject our Scriptural support and offer nothing in return.

Scriptural support? Random verses do not prove anything except grasping at straws in order to try to save face after making silly statements.

It’s really pathetic the unscriptural nonsense invoked to support their worship of Mary.

You'll have to elaborate; I don't and Catholic that I know of worships Mary. But I did think it funny listening to the hens giggle over not passing any sin on to their children - just their men would. Does that mean that the hens now consider themselves sinless?

6,999 posted on 01/11/2011 10:33:26 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6974 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Well this is what they teach in the Catechism regarding the sin nature:

There is no mention of 'sin nautre' in your excerpt. And sentence 294 addresses what the Faith believes.

7,000 posted on 01/11/2011 10:35:29 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6975 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,901-6,9506,951-7,0007,001-7,050 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson