Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
The preposterousness of the Love of the good God for a sinner. Indeed.
And glad yo changed your tag line this time. Now sing http://www.scriptureandmusic.com/Music/Text_Files/Wonderful_Grace_Of_Jesus.html
Mad Dawg sings softly on a North East train while also texting, and is noticed, and is soon approached by the conductor,
I am (not really) sorry sir, but you need be quiet to stop sending out religious messages or put that device away. Separation of church from signal forbids customers from using our wireless for religious purposes (unless you happen to be Islamic, Buddhist, Hindi, etc.).
Better do a study on what the “keys” meant to Old Testament Jews. It was the “keys” to the information of the Kingdom. Not who was let in or out but who was given the information about the Kingdom and how to conduct themselves. Jesus was giving the “keys” or the information about salvation and how Christians should conduct themselves.
Nonsense.
For one thing, it's not rocket science.
For another, wasting seed is wasting seed. Disobeying God's command to procreate is disobeying God's command to procreate, no matter how you couch it.
That’s a keeper for sure.
Ok, then answer the question.
Do you or do you not support what the Church teaches on contraception?
“Better do a study on what the “keys” meant to Old Testament Jews. It was the “keys” to the information of the Kingdom. Not who was let in or out but who was given the information about the Kingdom and how to conduct themselves. Jesus was giving the “keys” or the information about salvation and how Christians should conduct themselves.”
Isaiah 22:10, shows just the opposite. I’m glad to see that you’re familiar with the argument. Because you wouldn’t be making this one without me not already having made this argument further up.
The Keys are the symbol of God’s authority - Christ is giving St. Peter the authority to forgive sins. He is acting as Christ’s representative here in earth, and most of all, the office is to be passed onto Peter’s successors. Just like the Keys to the Davidic kingdom.
“Disobeying God’s command to procreate is disobeying God’s command to procreate, no matter how you couch it.”
So you are saying that everyone is called to marry and have children?
What I wrote is not nonsense.
I regret that you think it is.
What the 12 bound on earth was bound in heaven and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. They were to preach the gospel to every creature. But lookie here, in Galatians. "When James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that WE SHOULD GO TO THE HEATHEN, and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION."
They loosed themselves from their commission to take the gospel to every nation, and gave Paul the right hand of fellowhsip to take HIS GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD TO THE GENTILES. Peter and the 11 confined their ministry to the Jews.
Now if you believe you are a Jew, then maybe you would have an argument regarding Peter's "successors". But Israel has been blinded and set aside until the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in. So it does you absolutely no good to claim to be Israel today. The Body of Christ is made up of neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, etc. So, the question is, WHAT "successors" to Peter? What exactly would they "succeed" him WITH? The only question remaining should be "why did Peter and the 11 loose themselves from the commission given to them by Christ? And make no mistake, it was not an accident. It was not laziness, or an inability to fulfill their commission. It was COMPLETELY IN LINE with God's Plan. And they perceived that when Paul and Barnabas told them "that gospel they preach unto the heathen".
Paul goes on in Corinthians to preach that he was the least of the Apostles and unworthy to be one because he persecuted the Church of Christ.
Sorry, I’m not seeing the connection you are trying to make here. Are you saying he was a sort of Miss First Runner Up to Apostleship? That in the event a REAL Apostle could not fulfill his duty, Paul would be named a Real Apostle?
I’m saying that Paul did not place himself above St. Peter. He put himself at the end, not in front of the Apostles.
No, He wasn’t.
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Barne’s notes on the Bible
And I will give unto thee ... - A key is an instrument for opening a door.
He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence an emblem of power and authority. See the Isaiah 22:22 note; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 notes. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth. See the notes at Matthew 3:2. When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36; 10. The "power of the keys" was given, on this occasion, to Peter alone, solely for this reason; the power of "binding and loosing" on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had was the honor of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.
Whatsoever thou shalt bind ... - The phrase "to bind" and "to loose" was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, "The school of Shammei binds it" - i. e., forbids it; "the school of Hillel looses it" - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. [http://bible.cc/matthew/16-19.htm]
“Barne’s notes on the Bible”
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought Sola Scriptura was the only thing that counted.
Are you saying that we should use tradition to interpret scripture?
Do you have no idea what Sola Scriptura means?
“Barne’s notes on the Bible”
You’re a sola scripturist. Now, you’re telling me that you rely on the tradition of men.
Interesting. Thanks CB. Glad to know I was right about you. You rail about that which you practice yourself.
"For I speak to yo Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE.:" Rom. 11:13.
And this:
"According to the GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise masterbuilder, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon.. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon." 1 Cor.3:10. He is saying that he laid the foundation for the Grace of God that was given to HIM. He is not saying that he is building upon the foundation of the Kingdom Gospel that was entrusted to Peter and the 11.
Do you think he was inspired to write these words? Or a nutjob who wanted to take the credit for what Peter and the 11 were doing?
What is your interpretation of Sola Scriptura?
Bingo.
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.