HERESY?

[Marymog]

Christ's description of the Pharisees springs to mind....
“Everything they do is meant to attract the attention of others. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love to have places of honor at banquets and the best seats in synagogues, 7 and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be addressed as ‘Rabbi.’
8 “But do not allow yourselves to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master, and you are all brethren. 9 Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 You must not be called ‘teacher,’ for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. 12 All those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all those who humble themselves will be exalted." (New Catholic Bible)

The Rabbis exaggerated the way they dressed to set them apart from the common people.

Where is it written that the first Christians dressed like this?
Were they supposed to emulated the Pharisees in their distinctive clothing?

Did the first Christians meet for worship in buildings like these...? Did Christ command a temple?

If not, why this ostentation? Where did the church get the idea that this was even a Christian thing to do? Or was humility now to be displayed among Christ's followers? Does this speak of humility?

Hey Jane,

I the passage from Matthew 23 you quoted Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Rabbi's. Not bemoaning how they dress so that passage has nothing to do with what we are debating.

There is no historical information to suggest the first Christians dressed like that. The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Like I said before. I would prefer the money be spent on the poor but their is nothing in Scripture against it. I defend Church doctrine/dogma which is based on Scripture. I think the most important part of Matthew 23 is this: The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it. Jesus is telling his listeners to obey their Church elders/leaders. This is followed up later in Hebrews 13:7; 13:17 and 1 Peter 5:3-5. Do you obey your Church leaders Jane? I follow Scripture so I do.

The Jews site Exodus 28 when considering what God thinks of vestments. The best I can tell is that historically Christians continued this practice. Wearing of the vestments visually separates the Church elders from the flock. What do you think about the Protestant preachers that wear a $1,000.00 suit and tie while on stage preaching to others about helping the poor? Do you dislike that also? If so, why haven't you said anything about it? Why are you only pointing out how Catholic church leaders dress?

As Catholics we believe that a church building is the House of the Lord, He is with us in that building and that is why they are so ornate. Does God abhor ornate church buildings? 1 Kings, chapter 7 would seem to suggest just the opposite. It describes intricate workmanship, a golden altar and cherubim and pillars of copper or bronze for His temple. God was quite pleased with His house as His cloud settled into it and dwelt there.
I had to look up the word "ostentation" If you believe that God is unhappy that men have built beautiful, elaborate and ornate churches to honor Him then you would be wrong. I refer you back to 1 Kings chapter 7 and I would refer you to the Ark of the covenant that was commanded to be built and 1 Chronicles 22! So there you go. I have used Scripture to give you the reasons FOR ornate/elaborate Churches. Can you use Scripture to show that God is against it? Not your opinion...but Scripture!


In regard to your question: Did the first Christians meet for worship in buildings like these...?

Historically we know they didn't. They met in houses. The reason they could/did meet in houses is because there weren't very many Christians. As the Christian population grew they needed bigger meeting places so they built Churches. Also, they didn't have the money to build churches. Did you know that some of the first churches they built were over the houses of some of the people in the NT? Also, did you know that some of them were ornate? Not compared to todays standard..... but according to their standards at the time they were ornate none the less. Archaeologists believe they found church built over house of Apostles Peter and Andrew / OrthoChristian.Com

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The notion is appalling because it is immoral. “The clear implication of the dispensational view is that God was offering Israel a very wicked option. According to Dispensationalism, the Lord Jesus Christ was offering something to the Jews in good faith which, had they accepted, would have destroyed the only way of man’s salvation” (JHG). This, God would never do because He is righteous. “If God did offer a kingdom which He could not have permitted to be established, He could be neither honest nor sincere” (JHG)."

Mainstream dispensational teaching does not believe this

before you go trying to destroy a belief system try to understand it

while there extremes out there. When you try to insert the beliefs of extreme believers to the whole group you tend to miss the whole point

 

[Marymog]

It's all well and good to defend what you believe...but if the Bible is not the foundation of your beliefs, then it will show in words and actions.

I do not belong to a "denomination" which assumes one to be part of the fractured churches of Christendom.
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have been for coming up to 50 years since my baptism....something I chose to do as an adult, not an infant. And my baptism was full immersion in recognition of what it meant to dedicate my life to the doing of God's will first in life. Unlike the churches, you cannot join Jehovah's Witnesses....you have to choose to become one...just as the first century Jews and Gentiles had to leave their former worship behind and follow a new course chosen by them alone. No sprinkling babies with water and pretending that it is baptism.

Hey Jane,

The Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics on this site get belittled the most from the other members. They really dislike us and think we are brainwashed cult members. They are quick to say any Christian can interpret the bible and their interpretation is right. but if you tell them you are Catholic or JW they quickly say YOU (or your church) can't properly interpret the bible. It cracks me up.

So you don't have any concerns about all the historical schisms in your denomination? You aren't concerned that historically your church is just a break away church from a break away church from a break away church of the Protestant Reformation (part of the fractured churches of Christendom)? Your not concerned that 1800 years after the death of Christ a man who was confused about Protestant teachings started your denomination based on his own teachings? I don't say this in a mean way. I really don't understand why you would "choose to become one" when one reads the history of your denomination.

Mary

PS....What passage in Scriputre says that one MUST be immersed? I can't find it.

 

[Marymog]

I know......don't they apply to all? Shouldn't they?

No...they don't and they shouldn't. Scripture is the truth and the truth shall set you free. Truth does NOT equal opinion. Scripture is not opinion. It is truth. Opinions change....Scripture doesn't. Sooooo for you to give your opinion when interpreting Scripture is against scripture........but i digress.

 

[Marymog]

Are you saying that you chose to become Catholic? What was it that convinced to revert to something so plainly devoid of Christ's teachings? I did not leave Protestantism....I left Christendom because all their core doctrines are the same, originating from the same place......ancient Babylon.

Some background....
"In 313 C.E., persecution of Christians by the Roman world came to an end under Constantine, with the Edict of Milan, which granted freedom of religion to Christians and pagans alike. The legalization of “Christianity” in the Roman Empire turned the tide. However, about 340 C.E., a professed Christian writer called for the persecution of pagans. Finally, in 392 C.E., by means of the Edict of Constantinople, Emperor Theodosius I banned paganism within the empire, and religious freedom died a premature death. With Roman “Christianity” as the State religion, Church and State embarked on a campaign of persecution that lasted for centuries, reaching its zenith in the bloody Crusades of the 11th to the 13th centuries and in the cruelty of the Inquisitions, which began in the 12th century. Those daring to question the established orthodoxy, the monopoly of dogma, were branded as heretics and tracked down in the witch-hunt climate of the time."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200272255/4/0
This is all in recorded history.
With that background in mind, go back to original Christianity and ask what Jesus did? He preached his message without force and compelled no one to become his disciple. To be baptized as a Christian was not something imposed by birth but something that was to be the choice of one hearing the Christian message and acting on it of their own free will.
That is religious freedom. I am not talking about being free to believe whatever you wish....but to follow the teachings of Christ in all things. I have never seen the Catholic church do that...ever.

I choose to become a member of The Church spoken of in Scripture. You choose to become a member of a breakaway from a breakaway from a breakaway of a Protestant church that broke away from The Church. I do not regret my decision.

As expected....Not one passage from Scripture from you to support your opinion on religious freedom. Looks like I won't go back to becoming a Protestant.

 

[Marymog]

Wow...where do I start....from the beginning I guess....

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

What reason can be offered except that only one body considered itself the rightful custodian of those scriptures? Any heresy was almost impossible to prove unless people could read the scriptures in their own language......why did the church resist? Could they not have provided such themselves?

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Unlike the Reformers like Wycliffe, Luther and Tyndale who laboured tirelessly to give the Word of God to the people in their own native tongue, the Catholic church wanted to keep a tight rein on its contents. If the Jews were permitted OT scripture in the vernacular (The Greek Septuagint) then what was the church's excuse?

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

You really should learn Christian history and WHY those proclamation's were made.

 

[Marymog]

“ All things are lawful to me....”

Hey Bloodbought, Thanks for joining the conversation....

Lol....That has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious freedom and each individual Christian having the authority to read the bible and interpret it on their own and come up with their own interpretation (truth).

If your theory were true then you can NEVER tell another Christian they are wrong in their interpretation of the truth. There would be no "truth" in Scripture if your theory were true. Scripture would only be opinion.

 

[Lambano]

What is an "AOK"?

Should be hyphenated: “A-OK”.



(and she is)

 

[Marymog]

Not "a leader" but a plurality of elders (1 Peter 5:1-3). So if one is out of line, the others can correct him. Even so, the elders do not stand in for any Christians. They can lead, encourage, admonish, rebuke, but in the end each person must take responsibility for himself or herself.

The elders [plural] which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

I agree that The (universal) Church has a "plurality of elders". It's called the magisterium.

Each individual church in each individual town is under THE CHURCH. And those individual church leaders are to obey the teachings of The Church. You know...kind of like what happened at the Council of Jerusalem??? Each individual church leader had to obey the teaching of The Church.

If we put your theory into practice the elders at each individual church can decide what the "truth" is and teach what they want. That theory leads to each individual church having is own truth. That theory is not taught in scripture. Scripture actually teaches that there is one church with one teaching and one truth. Your theory is opposite of that.

 

[Marymog]

Should be hyphenated: “A-OK”.

I think that's what confused me (no hyphen)....thank you.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Mainstream dispensational teaching does not believe this

Define "mainstream dispensationalism" please?

FYI....Dispensationalist author Harry A. Ironside* wrote a book that promoted this idea, called The Great Parenthesis the mystery in Daniel’s prophecy.

Ironside said, “I believe it can be shown from Scripture that this Great Parenthesis is the true key to a right understanding of prophecy.” With this premise, based on their interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, the dispensationalists reinterpret all prophecy. But scholars have found that the book of Revelation is chock full of allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Its opening verse says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” It seems strange, if there was to be a two thousand year gap, before the prophecies described in the book were to occur. These facts suggest that the idea of a Great Parenthesis which Ironside took as his “key” to unlock all prophecy was a flawed premise. In his book, Ironside described his view of the prophecies, which he represented metaphorically as mountains. The church age, he said, lay in a valley that was hidden from the prophets.

The Great Parenthesis is what is referred to as the "offer that Jesus made and was rejected by the Jews" and is the basis for separating the "church" from the Jews; a twofold false system of theology.

(Henry Allen "Harry" Ironside was a Canadian-American Bible teacher, preacher, theologian, pastor, and author who pastored Moody Church in Chicago from 1929 to 1948. en.wikipedia.org)

 

[amigo de christo]

I believe that Dispensationalism is a heretical doctrine that has infiltrated the church since the early 1800's and should be discussed in this forum.

I had been "on the fence" for some time; reluctant to brand it so seriously. However, after recently reading a critique of the book 'Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth' written by the Reformed theologian, Dr. John H. Gerstner I am no longer on the fence. It definitely is a heretical system of theology. Following is a small portion of the book that was edited by Don Kistler....

************************************​

"As Dispensational theology has a spurious Calvinism so it suffers from a “dubious evangelicalism” according to Dr. Gerstner. In chapter 9 Dr. Gerstner plainly demonstrates how the “Kingdom Offer” concept to the Jews undermines the gospel.

According to Dispensational Theology Jesus Christ did not come primarily to die as a substitute for sinners but to establish His kingdom according to nationalistic Jewish expectations of a militant Messiah. “When Jesus came, He made a bona fide offer of the Kingdom and power to the people of Israel” (Donald G.Barnhouse). Unfortunately, the “Kingdom Offer” was rejected which led to...

(1) the suspension of time and
(2) the introduction of the “Church Age.”​

One day, according to Dispensational Theology, the “Church Age” will end and the “prophetic clock” will move forward again giving the Jews seven years of history according to Daniel’s prophecy of seventy weeks (cf. Daniel 9:24-27). During this seven-year period the Anti-Christ will emerge to lead the world to a blood bath at Armageddon. The Church Age saints will not be present during this “Great Tribulation” period having been “Raptured” seven years earlier at the beginning of the period.

The major problem with this whole scenario is that had the Jews responded to Christ’s offer to establish His kingdom “as they ought to have responded. There never would have been a gospel of Jesus Christ” (JHG). It is this positions that Dr. Gerstner finds most objectionable.

“This ‘Kingdom Offer’ is surely an appalling notion” (JHG).

The notion is appalling because it is immoral. “The clear implication of the dispensational view is that God was offering Israel a very wicked option. According to Dispensationalism, the Lord Jesus Christ was offering something to the Jews in good faith which, had they accepted, would have destroyed the only way of man’s salvation” (JHG). This, God would never do because He is righteous. “If God did offer a kingdom which He could not have permitted to be established, He could be neither honest nor sincere” (JHG)."​

Most all churches are tanked now . The sooner we realize this the better . And the sooner we can really try and help folks out of false places
and into the glorious light of JESUS CHRIST . So allow me to say it again . THE CC IS FALSE . i know that stings to lots of folks
but this is gonna sting too , SO ARE MOST PROTESTANT Churches . ITS TIME TO RUN from men and learn our bibles and get grounded
in THAT DOCTRINE .

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Define "mainstream dispensationalism" please?

FYI....Dispensationalist author Harry A. Ironside* wrote a book that promoted this idea, called The Great Parenthesis the mystery in Daniel’s prophecy.

Ironside said, “I believe it can be shown from Scripture that this Great Parenthesis is the true key to a right understanding of prophecy.” With this premise, based on their interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, the dispensationalists reinterpret all prophecy. But scholars have found that the book of Revelation is chock full of allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Its opening verse says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” It seems strange, if there was to be a two thousand year gap, before the prophecies described in the book were to occur. These facts suggest that the idea of a Great Parenthesis which Ironside took as his “key” to unlock all prophecy was a flawed premise. In his book, Ironside described his view of the prophecies, which he represented metaphorically as mountains. The church age, he said, lay in a valley that was hidden from the prophets.

The Great Parenthesis is what is referred to as the "offer that Jesus made and was rejected by the Jews" and is the basis for separating the "church" from the Jews; a twofold false system of theology.

(Henry Allen "Harry" Ironside was a Canadian-American Bible teacher, preacher, theologian, pastor, and author who pastored Moody Church in Chicago from 1929 to 1948. en.wikipedia.org)

Salvation today is the same as it has been for all time

By grace through faith

Main stream dispensationalsim does not teach any different

As for for your original post. God did not offer Israel an evil option. Oven if they had believed, Jesus still would have died. Without the death of the cross. No person could be saved.

You just proved you do not understand dispensationalism.

Why don;t you ask a dispensationalist instead of trying to read some book??

 

[1stCenturyLady]

That is really not how God's Word defines our makeup He created us with. Here's a better example...

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
KJV

1. soul
2. spirit
3. joints and marrow

We know that in order to be born again, we must first die, right? So God narrows it down to where does sin reside? In the nature. So which part of the soul, spirit and joints and marrow makes up our nature?

Romans 8:9-10
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

When we are born again and our nature changes, it is our conduct that is affected. So think. What controls our conduct? Our joints and marrow? No they move because of our mind and emotions which includes our heart where the laws of God become a new part of us. Therefore, the spirit and soul/mind and emotions/heart are the areas of rebirth, making our mortal spirit become immortal. So, in your question - numbers 1 and 2, are referred by Paul as our "flesh," our carnal nature, which becomes indwelt by God. Our carnal nature has been nailed to the cross, and we rise up in this life as born again Christians. Our body of joints and marrow does not become new yet. It has yet to die, but is headed in that direction, but is at the end of our life. Then at the resurrection it also changes and becomes immortal and joins together again with the spirit and soul to live with God forever.

In Romans 7 (KJV), Apostle Paul makes it easy about what it is that tempts our spirit. It is our flesh. So what's the soul? The soul part is the real person, and attached to it is our spirit. Now neither one of those, our spirit with soul is of this material dimension. It is of that other dimension. But while alive here on earth in a flesh body, it is attached to our flesh via a "silver cord" (Ecclesiastes 12:5-7). When or if that silver cord is severed, then our flesh goes back to the earth where it came from, but our spirit (with soul) goes back to God Who gave it (and that per Paul in 2 Corinthians 5).

Depending on which Bible version one uses, they can be terribly mislead of what Paul was pointing to in Romans 7:18 that causes most of our sins. It's obvious some don't understand the difference between flesh and spirit.

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
NIV


Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
KJV

Rom 7:18-19
18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't.
New Living Translation

Rom 7:18-19
18 I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it.
(THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language)

Rom 7:18-19
18 I know that nothing good lives in me; that is, nothing good lives in my corrupt nature. Although I have the desire to do what is right, I don't do it.
(GOD'S WORD TRANSLATION)

Rom 7:18-19
18 For I know that nothing good resides in me, that is, in my physical self; I can will, but I cannot do what is right.
Goodspeed Version

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me, that is, in my lower self, nothing good has its home; for while the will to do right is present with me, the power to carry it out is not.
Weymouth Version

If only you could see the context that the next chapter brings to chapter 7. The verses you have quoted are from our life BEFORE becoming Christians when all we knew was the Ten Commandments. Remember that the preceding chapters and chapters 9-11 refer to Israel - the Jews under the Mosaic Law. You are referring to the Old Covenant, the LAW. In the New Covenant of the SPIRIT sin has been killed/executed. And where there is no sin, there is no need for a written law that is in opposition to the old nature. Our new nature that is a new creation has the laws as part of our nature. We are no longer in opposition to God's ways, but are in line with Gods righteousness.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, whodo not walk according to the flesh (the old nature), but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be b]">[b]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the c]">[c]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead (mortal) because of sin, but the spirit is life (immortal) because of righteousness.

So Davy, a true Christian cannot justify their sin, saying, my old nature made me do it. That false theory is in opposition to the power of Jesus and God's Word. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. Your mind has been brainwashed with doctrines of demons. Repent from listening to false teachers that insist as you do that Romans 7:14-23 is Paul as a born again Christian, and not the old Pharisee that killed Christians.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Define "mainstream dispensationalism" please?

FYI....Dispensationalist author Harry A. Ironside* wrote a book that promoted this idea, called The Great Parenthesis the mystery in Daniel’s prophecy.

Ironside said, “I believe it can be shown from Scripture that this Great Parenthesis is the true key to a right understanding of prophecy.” With this premise, based on their interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, the dispensationalists reinterpret all prophecy. But scholars have found that the book of Revelation is chock full of allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Its opening verse says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” It seems strange, if there was to be a two thousand year gap, before the prophecies described in the book were to occur. These facts suggest that the idea of a Great Parenthesis which Ironside took as his “key” to unlock all prophecy was a flawed premise. In his book, Ironside described his view of the prophecies, which he represented metaphorically as mountains. The church age, he said, lay in a valley that was hidden from the prophets.

The Great Parenthesis is what is referred to as the "offer that Jesus made and was rejected by the Jews" and is the basis for separating the "church" from the Jews; a twofold false system of theology.

(Henry Allen "Harry" Ironside was a Canadian-American Bible teacher, preacher, theologian, pastor, and author who pastored Moody Church in Chicago from 1929 to 1948. en.wikipedia.org)

I cannot determine which Ironside is siding with.

That the church is separate from God's relationship with Israel.

Or that there is one Church and God's promises to Israel include them in the Church.

 

[Moriah's Song]

That the church is separate from God's relationship with Israel.

That is what Ironside taught.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Why don;t you ask a dispensationalist instead of trying to read some book??

LOL! I have! And that is why it is better to get it from those "theologians" that have stated it. They have gotten it right out of the Scofield Reference Bible. The idea originally came from a person named John Nelson Darby. Schofield and Darby knew each other. Dallas Theological Seminary says in their "about" section how they teach it as part of their corriculem. The word is called "indoctrination."

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I cannot determine which Ironside is siding with.

That the church is separate from God's relationship with Israel.

Or that there is one Church and God's promises to Israel include them in the Church.

It depends on context.

Israel was seperate from the gentiles. Yet in the OT many gentiles were saved (ninevah is one example)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

LOL! I have! And that is why it is better to get it from those "theologians" that have stated it. They have gotten it right out of the Scofield Reference Bible. The idea originally came from a person named John Nelson Darby.

Lol. Well you have one right here.

And what you have posted is not anything i have ever heard a dispensation person (scofield or not) teach.

In fact did you know many people teach scofield taught that there are two gospels? That he taught Israel will return to being saved by the law in the tribulation period? Guess what.. ITS NOT TRUE. Scofield never taught that. (I know I have his study bible, and I have studied the dispensational teachings for decades now)

It seems like you don’t want to discuss you just want to poke and prod and assume you know what we all believe.

You won’t learn that way

You can’t damn a doctrine when you have no basis of understanding what that doctrine teaches.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We know that in order to be born again, we must first die, right? So God narrows it down to where does sin reside? In the nature. So which part of the soul, spirit and joints and marrow makes up our nature?

We did not die, we were already dead. We were born in adam, Born dead.

Born again does not mean being born spiritually twice, it means to be reborn, Only this time spiritually