Are you speaking for the Reformed churches again, or just yourself?
Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.
Posted on 02/03/2011 11:38:35 PM PST by RJR_fan
I’m sure you do, so alleged images of the Divine are worthless in any regard, and quite detrimental to a spiritual worship.
Are you speaking for the Reformed churches again, or just yourself?
What difference would it make?
What difference would it make?
1) You are not allowed to answer a question with a question.
2) I like to know what authority a person thinks he possesses. It often helps clarify the level of spiritual discernment likely to be displayed in other matters.
That’s an indefensible comparison.
God calling our righteousness outside of the blood of Jesus “filthy rags” cannot be compared to the disgusting comments made about those who would take the biblical mandate of the watchmen on the wall.
Can you really see Jesus making that comment?
“Be careful how you stare into the abyss,” Nietzsche wrote, “lest, eventually, you find the abyss staring into you.” We tend to become like what we behold — and staring too long into the lunacies of the newspaper exegetes can undermine the health of our own walk with God.”
So...if we spend all our time, talents & treasures thinking of creative ways to mock, ridicule & scoff at other believers’ non-essential theology, what does that say about us?
Who made that rule?
What levels of authority are there, in your opinion?
In your opinion.
Can you really see Jesus making that comment?
Some people can't see Him comparing our righteousness to a menstrual cloth.
2 Timothy 24, 25: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”.
I’m pretty sure Paul didn’t mean that ridicule is an acceptable form of “gentle instruction”.
Who made that rule?
That's two violations.
1) Recursion in interrogatives disallowed.
2) It's been part of human conversational protocol since at least Socrates.
What levels of authority are there, in your opinion?
That's three violations of the non-recursive interrogative rule in sequence.
By the authority vested in me by the American Baseball Analogy League, you're out.
I would first articulate that there are fundamental positions on which we must agree if we are to consider ourselves and others as true believers in Christ. These are those fundamental doctrines that lead to a saving faith in Christ, which have traditionally been accepted as the following:
1) The Deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus being God in human flesh, the second person of the Trinity. (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2) The Virgin Birth. (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3) The Blood Atonement. The once and for all sacrifice of Jesus dying for our sins. (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4) The Bodily Resurrection.(Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5) The inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).
Note that these all point to the person and work of Christ.
Now as to eschatology, Christ himself taught the following in Matthew 23:36: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” If eschatology were “essential” to salvation then it would of necessity be clear. Jesus taught the following: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Little children need fundamentals...endless speculation as to end times tends to muddy the waters. Nothing “hidden” can in my opinion be deemed a fundamental element of the faith.
Once you’ve established what is essential to a saving faith, you establish that the remaining doctrines are non-essential. I understand that this may be difficult for confessional/Reformed Protestants on some level.
Even if you disagree with me on what constitutes an essential article of faith, you must lovingly correct your brethren. Again as I’ve previously noted, Paul instructed Timothy as follows (2 Tim. 24,25): “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,”.
Mr. Mitchell I’m afraid does not “instruct” in the pattern of Paul’s teaching.
Among Protestants each and every individual is his or her own final authority on what Scripture means. That's all you really need to know to understand that Sola Scriptura is the spiritual equivalent of, “to thine own self be true”. After all, there is no list within His Word of which writings should be included in the Word. So, toss out books, add a book with your own name on it, whatever. You can still be Protestant because it's all about you being comfortable.
Can I hit the showers?
Great job . . . however . . .
practiced deafness can be a particular challenge.
Laz would.
me: Can you really see Jesus making that comment?
you: Some people can’t see Him comparing our righteousness to a menstrual cloth.
God was making this comparison to show our desperate need for a Savior. The comment I was referring to was a gratuitous, nasty swipe at fellow believers.
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.