HERESY?

[Eternally Grateful]

There was no distinction made regarding Judas because each man was chosen by God after Jesus spent all night in prayer to his Father....
Matthew 10:1...
"So he summoned his 12 disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, in order to expel these and to cure every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity."
The 12 are mentioned here without excluding Judas. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus knew from the beginning of his ministry exactly who would betray him.
Judas was not a thief from the beginning but became one. The fact that he was entrusted with caring for the common finances of Jesus and the 12 reflects favorably on his dependability at the time, and his ability or education, especially since Matthew had had experience with money and figures but did not receive this assignment.
It was less than a year after he had been made an apostle, when he was publicly denounced by Christ, though not by name. Jesus acknowledged that he had chosen the 12 but said: “One of you is a slanderer [Gr., di·aʹbo·los] meaning “devil” or “slanderer”.”

The account explains that the one who already was a slanderer was Judas, who “was going to betray him, although one of the twelve.” (John 6:66-71) In connection with this incident John says: “From the beginning Jesus knew . . . who was the one that would betray him.” (John 6:64) From Hebrew Scripture prophecies Christ knew that he would be betrayed by a close associate. (Psalm 41:9; Psalm 109:8; John 3:18-19) Jesus was made aware as time went on who his betrayer would be.

God also, by use of his foreknowledge, had seen that such a one would turn traitor, but it is inconsistent with God’s qualities and past dealings to think that he set Judas up to fail, as if his actions were predestined. He still had free will.

So you believe a person can be saved with no faith.

ok. I got it

Judas followed jesus because like many jews he thought Jesus was going to take over the throne and kick out the romans. Sadly. Like many of the jews. Once they found out Jesus came not to do that. but to convict them of their sin and show them their need for a savior. of which he came to be. He proved where his true faith lied. and ended up turning like many did (see John 6) because as jesus said. They did not believe.

He also called Judas the son of perdition. As Jesus said, whoever the father gives he will by no means cast out.

You want Jesus to go against his word. Then let him

My faith is in Gods promise and his gift.

Not in my ability

 

[Grailhunter]

God authorized men to create graven images....that FACT is true. It is in Scripture.

He does not authorize the WORSHIPING of those images. That is the point you are missing and where you are going wrong.

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:4

Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:4

Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 26:1

It has been debated….do all these scriptures refer to idols? Images with the intent to worship or revere these images and statues. Still a debate but, the fact is Yahweh ordered the production of some images and carved images and statues and woven images for the Tabernacle and maybe the Temple. Some of these are duplicates.

Exodus 25:18-22 Gold Cherubim for the mercy seat.
Exodus 25:31-40 Lampstand with shapes of almond blossoms.
Exodus 26:1 Drawings of Cherubim for the curtains of the Tabernacle.
Exodus 36:8 Curtains made of Cherubim.
Exodus 37:7-9 Cherubim for the mercy seat of the Ark.
Exodus 37:19-20 Lampstand made with cups shaped as almond blossom.
Exodus 21:4-9 The bronze serpent.
King Solomon’s Molten Sea or Brazen Sea was a large bronze basin at the Temple. It was supported by 12 statues of oxens. 1st Kings 7:23-26 2nd Chronicles 4:2-5.

So what does this mean? Engraved images are only allowed if Yahweh directed the production of such images? Or the prohibition only applies to idols? The debate leans toward a prohibition of idols because any further examples in the Old Testament that are negative, relates to idols and the prohibition is not reiterated in the New Testament. Because it is not reiterated in the New Testament does that mean that crucifixes and statues that are in Catholic Churches and such are sanctioned. This topic was a debate within the Catholic Church in the 8th and 9th centuries but the use of images won out. My opinion is that I agree with the Catholic view of this.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I hear the word "gospel" bandied about a lot by many Christians, but can you tell me exactly what you think it means?
What is "the gospel"? In order to accept it or reject it, you first have to know what it is....
Like the "Kingdom of God"....its talked about....but what is God's Kingdom? And what is its purpose?

The gospel is simple. the good news of jesus.

There is only one. There are not many ways to heaven there is only one. Many people call themselves believers. But not everyone believes the same gospel. so not everyone is saved.

The kingdom has many aspects. it depends on what context your discussing

Can you provide a single scripture that states that anyone was saved, as in past tense....that it had already happened in their lifetime? All I can find is future tense that we "will be saved"..so again what does it mean to be "saved"....what are we getting saved from?

where do I start?
Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Romans 8:24
For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
We have very different understanding of that term.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

2 Timothy 1:9
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

There are many aspects to salvation

I have been saved (rescued) from the penalty of sin (called justification)

I am being saved from the power of sin (called sanctification or christian growth)

I will be saved from the ability to sin as my salvation is complete (called glorification)

But I am just as saved and in the vchild of God 30 years ago as I am today as I will be when christ returns.

Because as paul said. I was saved by Gods mercy, His grace, His love, and his sons death.

We have very different understanding of that term.

Dead means dead. If we are physically alive yet called dead. we are spiritually daed.

Death means separation from God.

Being "made alive" simply means being made 'spiritually' alive....a reverse of the situation of being 'spiritually' dead. Where does it say that means being "born again"?

Well lets see.

1. You have physical birth
2. You have spiritual birth.

That means we have been born again.

He who is dead (spiritually) he made alive (spiritually)

Please provide scripture where this is stated....no one is saved until they are....so again what does it mean to be "saved"?
If I save you from drowning or if I save you by giving you CPR....what have I saved you from? Or if I saved you from being attacked by a bear or a crazed gunman.....what have I saved you from?

Please provide a scripture that says a person who is NOT SAVE and is spiritual DEAD (in adam) is going to heaven

According to James, if our faith is devoid of works, it is a dead faith. Abraham is mentioned in Hebrews 11 as one whose faith was strong, so strong in fact that he is the only man in all of the Bible to be called "Jehovah's friend".

James' reasoning is not ambiguous in this....James 2....
14 "Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?
18 "Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
20-23 "But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that his faith was active along with his works and his faith was perfected by his works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled that says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called Jehovah’s friend. You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone".
26 "Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Does God's word contradict itself?

James asked a question. IF ONE CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH.

He never said they had faith.

He also told these people who CLAIMED TO HAVE FAITH to PROVE THEIR FAITH to HIM (not God) and he would prove his faith to them by his works.

He also said their faith was dead. Lifeless. Last I checked. If one has no faith (mere belief) they are not saved. If they are not saved. well then that explains why they have no works.

does Gods work contradict? No

so why do you make it contradict?

4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

can you explain why Paul contradicts james here (using your interpretation of James?

And don;t say it is only works of the law

1. There was no law when abraham was saved
2. David spoke of the same salvation of faith apart from works
3. Paul is speaking to roman gentiles no jews

Both are necessary.....as Jesus said, those who are found "doing the will" of his father will enter the Kingdom....it means more that just "believing". Faith is active, not passive.

Nope they are not necessary. They are a given

Those who trust God for salvation WILL trust God in other areas of their life. Works is a byproduct of

1. The love of God being poured out on us
2. Us pouring that love out to others (works)
3. Trusting God in areas of our lives, It is not a perfect faith, faith grows, and that is where works increase, as faith grows

Salvation is faith in Gods provision for justification via the cross and his gift of eternal life to those who repent.

Anyone who boasts about their works is already lost, missing the whole point of them.... one's faith is defined by their works.

yet here you just spent a whole post boasting about your works.. and how your works save you.

 

[Grailhunter]

There are a lot people on the forum and a lot of guest that read what we post.
So in the interest of accuracy and understanding of the scriptures we need to understand the truth....about what is not there.

Theological advertising. People advertise to get you to do things or think things. The problem with theological advertising is that it is usually to get you to believe a false belief and it is very powerful and has staying power because it does not require you to read the Bible....it is easy.

For example...
The word fornication does not appear in the scriptures and it was coined later and then inserted in the various translations of the Bible. The word in the Bible that they are referencing never means two unmarried people having sex, for a lot of reasons. Fornication is a Latin word that occurs centuries later and it focuses on prostitutes.

The word(s) they are referencing in the scriptures mean illicit sex or sexual sins in different forms. As far couples it refers to what we would call one night stands, casual sex, carousing, and whore mongling. But in the scriptures it can mean all sorts of sexual sins and there are variances to the Greek word used.

If it is in your Bible it is a mistranslation, if you use it, it show you are not knowledgeable and can lead people astray and cause sin.

Original Sin, is also a phrase that does not appear in the scriptures or the Bible and it is a false belief.

The word Trinity does not appear in the scriptures or the Bible and its one God formulation is a false belief. Three full-fledged Gods united....in accord....Tri-unity...but not one person or God.

Then you have the words and phrases used in Calvinism that are not in the scriptures or the Bible and are false beliefs.

These words and phrases were thought up by men and made popular in orthodoxy to promote what they believed or just wanted others to believe. The doctrine of the one God Trinity was commanded by the Roman Catholic Church to stop the debates that were dividing the councils to bring unity to the Church....the means do not justify the end....the goal.

Not supporting false beliefs help in the attempt to teach the true Gospel to those that are learning.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

We still have the flesh.

Romans 8:9
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.

You are interpreting 1 John 1:8 as if that was about a Christian. No, it is to Christians, but about man's state before we come to Christ, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The "we" is general, as in human being or mankind. Otherwise, if we could be sinless on our own, we wouldn't need Christ. And no one is born sinless verse 10, except Christ. So, you see, we need the next verse in context, verse 9 But if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. THAT is how we become born again with a brand new immortal mind and heart, where the laws of God become part of us, no longer engraved on stone in opposition to man's sinful nature, but our new nature is made to be in line with God's laws. That has nothing to do with the shell we live in (our body). Sin was in our nature, not our bones. But because of Adam, our body must still die, like our nature died and was born again to be immortal. Our body will be raised immortal and we will live with Christ forever. And if, perhaps, we are still living at Christ's return, our body will be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Now that we are born again (that is IF we are and not just still in the Spirit's drawing us to complete surrender to Christ stage which many Christians still are and don't even belong to Christ) and the desire to sin in gone (like mine was 44 years ago - 30 year after starting to go to church!), it is our duty to keep growing more and more Christ-like, and keeping ourselves pure. We can do that by walking in the Spirit Whom is no longer drawing us from the outside with knowledge, but is now on our inside in our spirit and heart.

1 John 5:18
18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

There are a lot people on the forum and a lot of guest that read what we post.
So in the interest of accuracy and understanding of the scriptures we need to understand the truth....about what is not there.

Theological advertising. People advertise to get you to do things or think things. The problem with theological advertising is that it is usually to get you to believe a false belief and it is very powerful and has staying power because it does not require you to read the Bible....it is easy.

For example...
The word fornication does not appear in the scriptures and it was coined later and then inserted in the various translations of the Bible. The word in the Bible that they are referencing never means two unmarried people having sex, for a lot of reasons. Fornication is a Latin word that occurs centuries later and it focuses on prostitutes.

The word(s) they are referencing in the scriptures mean illicit sex or sexual sins in different forms. As far couples it refers to what we would call one night stands, casual sex, carousing, and whore mongling. But in the scriptures it can mean all sorts of sexual sins and there are variances to the Greek word used.

If it is in your Bible it is a mistranslation, if you use it, it show you are not knowledgeable and can lead people astray and cause sin.

Original Sin, is also a phrase that does not appear in the scriptures or the Bible and it is a false belief.

The word Trinity does not appear in the scriptures or the Bible and its one God formulation is a false belief. Three full-fledged Gods united....in accord....Tri-unity...but not one person or God.

Then you have the words and phrases used in Calvinism that are not in the scriptures or the Bible and are false beliefs.

These words and phrases were thought up by men and made popular in orthodoxy to promote what they believed or just wanted others to believe. The doctrine of the one God Trinity was commanded by the Roman Catholic Church to stop the debates that were dividing the councils to bring unity to the Church....the means do not justify the end....the goal.

Not supporting false beliefs help in the attempt to teach the true Gospel to those that are learning.

So do you believe a committed unmarried couple should live together and have kids, and then get officially married? What is married?

Is your first sexual intercourse is marriage, then are all future relationships are adultery?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Romans 8:9
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.

romans 7 refutes this theory, Paul sinned in the flesh,

If we did not still have the flesh,m we woudl never sin again, because we would have no temptation to serve self (flesh)

You are interpreting 1 John 1:8 as if that was about a Christian. No, it is to Christians, but about man's state before we come to Christ, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The "we" is general, as in human being or mankind.

John stated, IF WE..

if we (including himself) state we are without sin (presently) we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us.

John included himself. so unless John was not a christian at the time he wrote this passage. You are in error.

I pray you do not think you have no sin whatsoever. Not even Paul believed this about himself. are you greater than paul?

Otherwise, if we could be sinless on our own, we wouldn't need Christ. And no one is born sinless verse 10, except Christ. So, you see, we need the next verse in context, verse 9 But if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. THAT is how we become born again with a brand new immortal mind and heart, where the laws of God become part of us, no longer engraved on stone in opposition to man's sinful nature, but our new nature is made to be in line with God's laws. That has nothing to do with the shell we live in (our body). Sin was in our nature, not our bones. But because of Adam, our body must still die, like our nature died and was born again to be immortal. Our body will be raised immortal and we will live with Christ forever. And if, perhaps, we are still living at Christ's return, our body will be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Now that we are born again (that is IF we are and not just still in the Spirit's drawing us to complete surrender to Christ stage which many Christians still are and don't even belong to Christ) and the desire to sin in gone (like mine was 44 years ago - 30 year after starting to go to church!), it is our duty to keep growing more and more Christ-like, and keeping ourselves pure. We can do that by walking in the Spirit Whom is no longer drawing us from the outside with knowledge, but is now on our inside in our spirit and heart.

1 John 5:18
18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

so which is it.

are we sinless or are we not.

Why would we confess our sin if we are sinless? What sin?

If we sin, and use your interpretation of 5: 18. then are we really born of God, since we all sin?

Also. if we confess our sin, admitting we have sin, Is not john right? If we say we have no sin (as many do) we are deceived?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

romans 7 refutes this theory, Paul sinned in the flesh,

We've talked of this before. Romans 7 is about the OLD Law, the Ten Commandments that had to be kept by the letter of the law by a sinful flesh. That was the Old Covenant. Romans 8 INTRODUCES the New Covenant of the Spirit, and in verse 2 says "But the law of the SPIRIT of life in CHRIST, has FREED ME (PAUL) FROM (Romans 7) law of sin and death.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We've talked of this before. Romans 7 is about the OLD Law, the Ten Commandments that had to be kept by the letter of the law by a sinful flesh. That was the Old Covenant. Romans 8 INTRODUCES the New Covenant of the Spirit, and in verse 2 says "But the law of the SPIRIT of life in CHRIST, has FREED ME (PAUL) FROM (Romans 7) law of sin and death.

Nope

Paul said present tense. What I want to do. not what I wanted to do under law.

He is not talking about the law he is talking about his current struggle with sin.

 

[Grailhunter]

So do you believe a committed unmarried couple should live together and have kids, and then get officially married? What is married?

Is your first sexual intercourse is marriage, then are all future relationships are adultery?

I have explained this in detail in several threads, both the biblical and historical and it is an absolute fact. But first I want to say, I am an advocate of weddings....I believe in big fancy weddings making the bride think she a Queen. I support celebrating the marriage in receptions, preferably in the church. I support the custom..... but that is what it is, a custom. Still I believe all Christians that want to get married should have a wedding.

But then the facts are.....
1. Nowhere in the Bible, Old or New Testament is it a requirement for weddings nor is there a detailed description of the process.
2. The Jews did not even have a word for wedding.
3. Weddings were only the custom of Pagans during the entire biblical era...Old and New Testament.
4. Gentile Christians eventually started having weddings...probably because of their Pagan background they adopted and adapted Christian weddings after Roman weddings....that is why we have so many Pagan rituals imbedded in our modern Christian weddings.
5. Exactly when these weddings started is not certain....historically the first Christian Wedding occurred in the 9th century....but still not required.
6. The Catholics were not big on marriage and family and some in that era, still considered sex in a marriage as sinful. Ergo the false doctrine of Original Sin.
7. So it was the Protestants that first stepped up to the plate and required weddings in their denominations ....1500's. The Catholics soon followed suite and required weddings but declared that weddings were only valid when a priest affiliated the weddings.

In the Old Testament...men "took" wives. They might have paid a bride price for a wife but the union consummate the marriage and that was all that was required. This concept still exists in the legalities of modern marriages in that if a couple does not have sex after the wedding they can get the marriage annulled.

A couple that lives together and have sex and are monogamous are married the first time they made love. The marriage just as valid as if they had a wedding. Absolutely no sin. The only sin that occurs is if people condemn them or gossip about them.

From there it get a little complicated....If a person becomes a member of a denomination....church and agrees with the rules of that church and or denomination and then they do not have a wedding when they couple up, then they have defaulted on their word to the church....that is probably some sort of sin. But they have to be members of that church for that to be true. Still a couple that Joins are married...no sin...the sin is that they defaulted on their word to the church.

Now as far as I am concerned when God told Adam and Eve....For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh....I believe God should have conducted a wedding and Adam and Eve exchange vows. And explained that a marriage means two monogamous people, male and female and a man could only have one wife and they were equal in the marriage.

But of course that did not happen.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I have explained this in detail in several threads, both the biblical and historical and it is an absolute fact. But first I want to say, I am an advocate of weddings....I believe in big fancy weddings making the bride think she a Queen. I support celebrating the marriage in receptions, preferably in the church. I support the custom..... but that is what it is, a custom. Still I believe all Christians that want to get married should have a wedding.

But then the facts are.....
1. Nowhere in the Bible, Old or New Testament is it a requirement for weddings nor is there a detailed description of the process.
2. The Jews did not even have a word for wedding.
3. Weddings were only the custom of Pagans during the entire biblical era...Old and New Testament.
4. Gentile Christians eventually started having weddings...probably because of their Pagan background they adopted and adapted Christian weddings after Roman weddings....that is why we have so many Pagan rituals imbedded in our modern Christian weddings.
5. Exactly when these weddings started is not certain....historically the first Christian Wedding occurred in the 9th century....but still not required.
6. The Catholics were not big on marriage and family and some in that era, still considered sex in a marriage as sinful. Ergo the false doctrine of Original Sin.
7. So it was the Protestants that first stepped up to the plate and required weddings in their denominations ....1500's. The Catholics soon followed suite and required weddings but declared that weddings were only valid when a priest affiliated the weddings.

In the Old Testament...men "took" wives. They might have paid a bride price for a wife but the union consummate the marriage and that was all that was required. This concept still exists in the legalities of modern marriages in that if a couple does not have sex after the wedding they can get the marriage annulled.

A couple that lives together and have sex and are monogamous are married the first time they made love. The marriage just as valid as if they had a wedding. Absolutely no sin. The only sin that occurs is if people condemn them or gossip about them.

From there it get a little complicated....If a person becomes a member of a denomination....church and agrees with the rules of that church and or denomination and then they do not have a wedding when they couple up, then they have defaulted on their word to the church....that is probably some sort of sin. But they have to be members of that church for that to be true. Still a couple that Joins are married...no sin...the sin is that they defaulted on their word to the church.

Now as far as I am concerned when God told Adam and Eve....For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh....I believe God should have conducted a wedding and Adam and Eve exchange vows. And explained that a marriage means two monogamous people, male and female and a man could only have one wife and they were equal in the marriage.

But of course that did not happen.

You didn't answer this question: "If your first sexual intercourse is marriage, then are all future relationships are adultery?"

Do you believe in remarriage?

And it is a huge assumption that I have read all your posts... Having to repeat yourself is the nature of forums.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Nope

Paul said present tense. What I want to do. not what I wanted to do under law.

He is not talking about the law he is talking about his current struggle with sin.

Then Paul wasn't a born again Christian, according to the rest of the New Testament. 1 John 5:18

As far as present tense, you are implying by that that Paul was over 1300 years old at the time of that writing, having been alive before and at the time that Moses received the law. EG, you really need to learn what context is.

The bottom line is that those who are born again have a new nature and do not sin, and keep themselves pure. 1 john 3:3 If you want to soft-peddle sin so you can commit it, then you'll pay dearly.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Then Paul wasn't a born again Christian, according to the rest of the New Testament. 1 John 5:18

1 John 5: 18 states a child of god does not live in sin (sin continuously)

it does not say they NEVER sin.

And yes. Paul was a christian just like the rest of us.

As far as present tense, you are implying by that that Paul was over 1300 years old at the time of that writing, having been alive before and at the time that Moses received the law. .

Rom 7:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, (present tense) sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. (all present tense) 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. (present tense) 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells (present tense); for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. (present tense) 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. (present tense). 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (present tense) . 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. (present tense) Paul is saying, this is what i DO RIGHT NOW. not WHAT I DID BACK THEN.

EG, you really need to learn what context is

Before you go mocking me, you need to learn how to read. and you need to fit context to the passage not to what you want it to be

The bottom line is that those who are born again have a new nature and do not sin, and keep themselves pure. 1 john 3:3 If you want to soft-peddle sin so you can commit it, then you'll pay dearly.

Yes we do have a new nature, but we also have the old nature which is still at war in our bodies. This is what paul spoke of

You want to deny your sin, and think you are more righteous than you really are.. YOU will pay dearly

 

[BarneyFife]

I find that those who are more interested in ministry than in studying Scriptures might say this. And those who are more interested in studying Scriptures would disagree with those who put ministry ahead of study. The fact is, both kinds are needed, and we shouldn't be putting one against the other. We have different gifts, as the Spirit gifts us, and all of us are needed.

But yes, study of Scriptures and pushing doctrine can hurt ministry if it is not done properly. That's true. But let's not put criticizing doctrine in the general category of "unnecessary" or "interfering." Some of the best Christians I know were given by God to criticze liberal Christian beliefs and cultic Christian beliefs, liberating some from false or corrupt doctrines. It *is* necessary!

This discussion seems to boil down to gifts vs. fruit which, as you say, are both needed. I'd say balance is the key. (?) :)

 

[BarneyFife]

Here is a general definition from a Catholic dictionary. I say general because it is not specifically Catholic.

Heresy
"Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers."

But the word "heresy" literally just means "difference." Paul says heresies must exist in the church to expose the hypocrites. :)

 

[Marymog]

No.
It was Catholic churches.
Catholics are used to receiving communion regularly - Protestants are not so I doubt they would be in need of something like
a drive-thru communion.

Lol...well, not so true
At the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas in Overbrook Park, congregants received Communion on Sunday, March 15, 2020, without getting out of their cars. The drive-through service Church offers drive-through Communion during coronavirus pandemic (inquirer.com)

A church in Indianapolis is offering people the opportunity to pray and still get communion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers from the East 91st Street Christian Church Indianapolis church drive thru communion during COVID-19 pandemic (wrtv.com)

Pastor Joanie Holden speaks with one of her church members Sunday morning during the St. Timothy Lutheran Church's drive-through communion service. Church drive-thru communion | Coronavirus | chronicleonline.com

A southwest Missouri church offers communion in a safe, social distancing way for residents. Pineville Christian Church held it’s drive thru communion service this morning. Southwest Missouri church offers drive-thru communion to maintain social distancing | KOLR - OzarksFirst.com

The Rev. Thomas McKenzie, who leads Church of the Redeemer in Nashville, is offering a drive-thru communion option for all baptized Christians. Coronavirus in Nashville, Tennessee; drive-thru communion at church (usatoday.com)

Puppets, a Drive Thru, and Church: How one Church is continuing Worship During this Pandemic – University Report (umn.edu)

Plymouth church offering 'drive-up communion' during coronavirus pandemic (fox6now.com)

Drive-thru Holy Communion | KELOLAND.com

Etc. Etc.

 

[Marymog]

None so blind, apparently. Go in peace Mary, and believe as you wish. I am not your judge....I am merely a messenger.

A messenger??? Of what?

Are you contending that men DIDN'T see the Ark when they were making it???????

 

[Marymog]

What do you think of the men that were taught by the Apostles?
That would be the Early Church Fathers.
If those of us here are debating a specific teaching...
would it be wrong to see what the ECFs believed?

(I tend to trust them).

Hi GG,

I just to have some clarification here. The ECF's were not taught by the Apostles. The men that were taught by the Apostles are commonly called in theological circles as the "Apostolic Fathers". They would be Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch.

The ECF's would be Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria (not a complete list). They were not taught by the Apostles but probably taught by men who were taught by the Apostles (or a close proximity thereof).

The reason I am so passionate about getting this right is that when I started reading the Apostolic Fathers they brought out of my Protestant confusion and into The Church. Plus, I love Christian history.

Thank you for your time....Mary

 

[JohnPaul]

A messenger??? Of what?

Are you contending that men DIDN'T see the Ark when they were making it???????

A messenger of God’s word without defiling it through wrong interpretations.

 

[Marymog]

A messenger of God’s word without defiling it through wrong interpretations.

Lol....hold on. You believe that @Aunty Jane is a messenger of God's word and Jane never defiles it "through wrong interpretations."? Is that what you are saying John Paul????

Sooooo does that mean you and Jane agree on EVERY interpretation???

Curious Mary