Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
I didn’t think you could because it doesn’t exist and your non-answer demonstrates that.
Nonsense.
They’re just men and fallible at that.
I’m supposed to trust the private, fallible interpretations of a committee of corrupt religious leaders to guide me in my walk with God?
No thanks.....
Jesus is The Rock. So, yes, only one Rock who counts.
I read your first sentence and went no further.
Are you a catholic? They believe what you do.
Yeshua did not give any man on earth the power to commit the Holy Spirit to anything!
That is what apostleship comes from.
It is an anointing of the full power of the Holy Spirit, and it can only come from Yeshua.
Matthias might have been a wonderful disciple, but he was not an apostle.
Believe whatever you wish to believe.
I will continue to believe what God’s word PLAINLY states. Nothing more. Nothing less. And no, you could find no scripture to support your beliefs. That much is obvious.
BTW, I think it was the second sentence you were referring to, which came FROM GOD’S WORD. Are you calling God a liar?
There is no scripture teaching dispensations.
Dispensationalism is a false gospel that cuts Yehova’s indivisible word into arbitrary pieces, and denies the true gospel preached by all of Yehova’s appointed leaders from Moses to the NT apostles.
Put it far away from you and you will do well.
No man was ever given the power to ‘bind’ the Holy Spirit to any man.
Staying with your catholic reading of the word will make understanding the meat of the word quite imposible.
.
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the DISPENSATION OF GOD which is given to me for you, TO FULFILL THE WORD OF GOD:"(Colossians 1:25).
"For I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL IS COMMITTED UNTO ME."(1 Cor. 9:17).
Are you sure you want to continue down this road, editor?...
It amazes me how many people refuse to see the assurances we have.
Time to come into the New Testament delchiante.
Again, I appreciate your response, and I understand the objections you have raise. But the point of my response was to show that your claim of an undistributed middle in Daniel’s logic was spurious, and I believe that mater is now settled in Daniel’s favor.
And I do agree that all the terms presented need further refinement. I noted to myself as I did the analysis that a great quantity of subsidiary logic was necessarily being glossed over to prevent what I personally dread, the wall post, a post so long it does no one any good, other than to be printed and used as wall paper. :) So I did strive for an economy that provided focus for the one issue I meant to deal with.
However, as the terms come from Daniel’s original analysis (as best I could summarize them), I strongly suggest Daniel be copied into this conversation, and be provided the first opportunity to explore the terms you find controversial.
One more point, and only because it bothers me. In describing the failure of the magisterium as catastrophic, I cannot imagine what would be more catastrophic that to reject and kill the Son of God. I am sorry if you think I was angling for emotion. I write vividly because that is how I write. When I write boringly, even I get bored. But I assure you, my choice of term in that instance was conditioned by my real estimation of the objective failure of the Jewish magisterium. There are a number of them in decease who might now agree with my assessment. Objectively.
Peace,
SR
The grace of God was promised to Abraham long before Paul was born.
It is you that are on that broad road.
I’m sticking with the narrow path of Yeshua.
Bon voyage.
For those who replace the Holy Spirit with a man and a "magisterium" there will never be understanding.
And again to correct the error you seem to be spinning your wheels in.....
This passage is not a blanket order to obey the leadership of any church which claims that it alone is the one true church.
It is at the end of a discourse addressing how to handle disputes in the body.
It lays out very specifically the steps one is to go through in resolving personal conflict within the body.
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
NOWHERE does Jesus command us to "listen to the church".
The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*
That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage to claim or imply that it is a standing order of Jesus to listen to the Catholic church.
The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.
The grace of God was in God’s mind way before Abraham, way before Adam, even. It was hid in God from before the foundation of the world, but not made known until Paul. Prophecy and mystery, editor. A kingdom of believers and a body of believers. Law v. grace. Israel and the Gentiles. On God’s timeline. That HE chose to reveal to man gradually, not all at once. Otherwise, why would Abraham have believed God and begin to sacrifice his son? Why wouldn’t he have simply said, I believe that Christ will die for my sins, be buried and rise again the third day for my justification. Why wouldn’t Moses say the same thing? And David? And Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And, by the way, Christ Himself, before He died on the cross? What did Christ tell His apostles (Peter and the 11) to preach? The gospel of the kingdom. Do you know what that is and where it is found?
I understand. You denied that dispensation was talked about in the Bible. I showed you where it most certainly WAS talked about. It’s not about coming up with some off-the-wall doctrines and beliefs, it’s about reading God’s word, RIGHTLY DIVIDED, just as He tells us. Adding nothing, taking away nothing, just reading it as plainly as it is given.
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.