Posted on 11/06/2010 3:55:37 PM PDT by Benchim
There are millions of church going believers who really are confused and conflicted on central issues of the faith. Issue 1: Are you really saved? You may say "Yes" but you may not be sure because of the legal requirements of the group you joined. Issue 2: When do I receive my salvation? When I believe or when I die after a trial to determine if I did all the right things like baptism, repentance ,lived in obedience, confession , "born again", absolution from the priesthood,tithed,lived sinless and on and on. Did you observe the sabath? was your "church" attendance acceptable to God? By the way, you did not do this guilt trip on your own. You were constantly "coached" into these ambiguities by the institutional "Church" to better control their flock and to extract attendance and money.
(Excerpt) Read more at antinomianism-salvation.blogspot.com ...
What nice, neat, theology for you. Too bad it comes from the hearts and minds of men, and not the words of the Almighty.
Well, look at history.
From the day Paul wrote his letters they were used as the main guide in doctrine and considered sacred scripture.
It took close to two hundred years before James’ one little letter was considered sacred scripture, and even then it was put in the back of the book with the other scriptures the early Christians were not sure about.
But that one little leter has caused more problems as so many people now use it to cancel all the grace and libety letters from Paul.
Again, James’ letter was to THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL, not the Gentile believers.
Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
I eagerly await the reformation thesis entitled sola gratia.
Exactly.
Yes thanks . That is what I said. The word “Church” was contrived from the original meaning. When Paul writes the “Church” at Rome ,he was writing to ALL THE BELIEVERS there. Not a building. He was addressing those who believed that Christ was the savior. They had no buildings or denominations.
Oh so Peter wrote his own 'theology'? What about that parable of the ten virgins who make it all the way up to the END but do not have enough 'oil' (truth) to make it to the 'wedding'? (Matthew 25)
Paul channeling James or God?
Bodies are one united whole. Detached pieces of bodies are dead flesh.
Sheer eisegesis on your part.
We agree on something! Well done.
So are we to believe that Jesus (YWH) trains his chosen people to repent and obey, but then pulls a switcheroo on them in the NT?
Or God inspiring both Paul and James?
Headline: "Bible Christian" rejects portion of the Bible.
I am a member of Eklessia. The word “Church” was a creation in the 1630s of the King James Translation, There is no “Church” in the Bible. The Greek word in the Bible meabs— “Body of believers”!! That is all believers!! You don’t need a building with a mortgage and some egomaniac who makes his house payment and big car payment out of your gift the” god”.
I'll take that as a "no" to my second question, then.
"Teh Crazy", it is strong in this thread.
**John said it best in 3:16.**
That verse is the condensed summation of what the Lord had been teaching to Nicodemas in the previous 13 verses.
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
Some argue that the ‘water’ is natural birth, but Jesus didn’t say in the next verse that ‘that which is born of water is flesh’. It’s obvious he’s refering to baptism, as he commanded it in Matt. 28:19, and Mark 16:16.
In Luke 24:47, he commanded the disciples “that REPENTANCE and REMISSION of SINS should be preached in his NAME among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This command was first instituted in Acts 2:38, for there Peter commanded the convicted souls to “..REPENT, and be BAPTIZED EVERY ONE of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Back to John “the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou HEAREST the SOUND thereof, but CANST NOT TELL whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE the is born of the Spirit.” 3:8
Paul writing “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be SAINTS...” Rom. 1:7. (these folks were already born again)
Paul reminds them of their baptism in chp 6, vrs 3 and 4. and tells them in vrs 17 “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of DOCTRINE which was delivered you.”
So when blind leaders of the blind try to build a ‘believe only’ doctrine from Rom. 10, they are ignorant that Paul wrote that to people that were already born again (see chp 1:7 again).
The Lord prayed unto the Father in John 17, saying in vrs 17, “I have given them thy word..” and vrs 20, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through THEIR word;...”.
There’s an abundance of ‘believeing in Jesus’, but a great sidestepping of his commands.
If you don’t believe his words, you don’t believe as the scriptures hath said.
***Headline: “Bible Christian” rejects portion of the Bible.****
Remember your history when the only accepted books of the NT were the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters (except Hebrews),1Peter, 1 John.
Then they added James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Hebrews and Revelation.
So, do we take sacrifices to a temple as James demanded, obey the LAW of MOSES (all of it, not just one part), take vows on our heads?
Precisely what parts of James’ writing to the Jews negate Paul’s letters to the Gentiles?
Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe NO SUCH THING, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26 ¶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all [men] every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
The CoC commands water baptism as per Acts 2:38, but doesn’t baptise in the name of Jesus, as per Peter’s command. So they are in enormous error on that matter.
No, you read his words like your theology dictates.
You have NO clue what 'my' theology is but you have been programmmmmmed to ignore Peter's own words.
What about that parable of the ten virgins
Ah, if you use parables to create a theology, there is no end to heresy. You can make them say whatever you want. Parables are illustrations designed to make a point - not to create theologies out of whole cloth. Why not be honest and just rip out the first 3/4 of your Bible. That way you can join the heretic Marcion and have a "clean slate" for your errant theology. Me? I will stick to the eternal Word - unchanged and complete from beginning to end. No contradictions, no dispensations, no twisting of the Almighty's words. No bait-and-switch theology.
Christ spoke to the masses in parables BUT he privately explained them to His disciples. And we have the parables and then the private explanations... so they would NOT be parables to those who read with understanding.
Somebody is going to run out of 'oil' because they ignored the whole of the WORD... and those that run out of truth in the final dispensation of this flesh age are going to be scurry about trying to 'buy' some to get some light.
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.