The Way/Theosis/entire sanctification.

[Hepzibah]

I'm having trouble processing these days, but it seems that you are missing the "yes but not necessarily yet" of the truth.. "All things HAVE been put under His feet, but we do not yet SEE all things put under His feet." And the last enemy to be defeated is death. I believe this has application on a personal level as well as in a future historical sense. I see salvation as being BOTH an initial event, as well as a journey/race that is not done until our time is up here. But the natural man can't perceive this...we need the mind of Christ for it. I wonder if spending a lot of time reading the early church fathers is making you too "logical" in how you are seeing some things....?

I haven't spent a lot of time reading them, no, they are very hard to read at times. I have read them though secondary sources too.

I found them because of my own experience of Theosis and thought that it should be taught by them, and it was. That is not to say that I go outside of scripture. I do not accept anything that contradicts it.

 

[Lizbeth]

I haven't spent a lot of time reading them, no, they are very hard to read at times. I have read them though secondary sources too.

I found them because of my own experience of Theosis and thought that it should be taught by them, and it was. That is not to say that I go outside of scripture. I do not accept anything that contradicts it.

Just that their way of "explaining" these things might be too much from the natural mind...? The mind of Christ is a spiritual mind. Things just weren't the same with the church after Paul departed, as he warned would happen...wolves in leadership, which speaks to hungry flesh...ambition and other carnality etc, tainting everything. God is not a man that He should lie.....so we need to always look to the Lord and His word and not be putting our reliance on men, what they say or write. (It always has been about a remnant really, and always will be like that until the end.)

I am not denying at all the need to get hold of something more, to put our old man carnal nature under our feet, to surrender our will to God etc..... just that I believe how we understand and approach these things needs to be in spirit.

 

[Hepzibah]

Just that their way of "explaining" these things might be too much from the natural mind...? The mind of Christ is a spiritual mind. Things just weren't the same with the church after Paul departed, as he warned would happen...wolves in leadership, which speaks to hungry flesh...ambition and other carnality etc, tainting everything. God is not a man that He should lie.....so we need to always look to the Lord and His word and not be putting our reliance on men, what they say or write. (It always has been about a remnant really, and always will be like that until the end.)

I am not denying at all the need to get hold of something more, to put our old man carnal nature under our feet, to surrender our will to God etc..... just that I believe how we understand and approach these things needs to be in spirit.

Yes agreed. The ones that taught it - and not the majority as you say, were on the same spiritual 'wavelength' as me and were interpreting certain scriptures on the subject, in the same way that I believe God had taught me, and explaining that it had happened to them. The wolves certainly came in early but that teaching, the apostolic teaching, continued on even though, increasingly more and more did not have the experience of entering in themselves and more and more denied it as truth.

The thing about me Lizbeth is, that my whole life has been filled with abuse of many kinds and I was severely messed up as a child, and whatever I believed about God had to be reality and not just ideology. It had to work. That is what I was seeking - an authentic walk with God and I found it after much despair of ever finding it. The ability to walk as He had walked and be above the world, the devil and sin.

 

[GodsGrace]

Many surmise such a thing, I do not, as I don't see anything in Scripture to support that.

Much love!

HI marks....
Been away and I lost our convo a little...but, referring to the above,
I stated that the Holy Spirit was received and also there was the laying on of hands in the bible times.

What is it that you don't believe scripture supports??
The laying on of hands?

I has posted
1 Timothy 4:14 NASB
14Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

NLT
14Do not neglect the spiritual gift you received through the prophecy spoken over you when the elders of the church laid their hands on you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Don't forget that Jesus is still alive and able to ordain whoever He wants for anything He wants. He doesn't have to use the agency of man to confer spiritual gifts/callings.

So are you saying that a person could "hear" from God and apply as Pastor at a church/denomination?

Or do you think the "agency of man" is required to him to be able to pastor a church?

You know, spiritual statements sound very nice,,,,
but a man cannot just decide for himself that he's a pastor and expect a church/denomination to accept him.

The "agency of man" as you called it, is necessary to ascertain that the person is ABLE and has enough KNOWLEDGE and
to be able to fill such a position.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have been reading through this conversation, and find it stimulating, thanks to the goodwill between you guys.

There should always be good will.
How to discuss without good will?

I am reminded of the time in the Gospels when Jesus sent out His disciples, and they came back rejoicing that even the demons obeyed them. There was no laying on of hands, in fact,

The bible is not going to repeat itself every single time something happens.
In one instance we read of Jesus breathing on the Apostles...
John 20:23
Can we presume that this is the only time Jesus breathed on the Apostles?

In Luke 4:40 we're told that Jesus lay hands on many sick person and healed them.

In Acts 13:3 prophets and teachers were at the church of Antioch who lay hands on Barnabas and Paul so they could go on their missionary journeys. Could this be because Jesus had taught them this?

one could argue whether some of them were even fully converted, such as Peter and Judas, yet through the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ breathed on them, they eye able to exercise power and authority in His name. Similar I think to the authority of a traffic officer. That authority isn't inherently in him, but he acts in the name of the government, and so is recognised as having authority. It isn't something handed down as if it were a tangible thing they received, but it was the authority given to act on the name of another... in that case, Jesus. Interestingly, Jesus acted in the name of the Father.

I lost you a little bit.
Of course authority has to be given/conferred to a person.

But it sounded as if you were denying that the laying on of hands is important in our Christian faith...
maybe I misunderstood.

 

[Lizbeth]

So are you saying that a person could "hear" from God and apply as Pastor at a church/denomination?

Or do you think the "agency of man" is required to him to be able to pastor a church?

You know, spiritual statements sound very nice,,,,
but a man cannot just decide for himself that he's a pastor and expect a church/denomination to accept him.

The "agency of man" as you called it, is necessary to ascertain that the person is ABLE and has enough KNOWLEDGE and
to be able to fill such a position.

I think we should consider whether "apostolic succession" is false doctrine, sister. I don't mean to offend, but who appointed Paul as an apostle? It was the living resurrected Lord who called and equipped/gifted him and Paul just began to obey and function in his calling/gifting and gathered together congregations of souls he had preached the gospel to and gotten saved.

Something I would question is why any particular decent-sized congregation doesn't already have pastoring gifts among them and have to automatically look outside their circle for pastors, making "seminary" training the qualification. So many churches are run like the world runs businesses, and not in the way and simplicity of Christ, the Way of the Spirit.

How can two walk together except they be agreed? The Lord is able to lead and guide both parties if they both have ears to hear and willing hearts. He will not tell one party one thing and the other party something that contradicts what He tells the first party. If you see that then one party has to be hearing wrong.

 

[marks]

What is it that you don't believe scripture supports??
The laying on of hands?

No, the transfer of Jesus' giving His apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins of others. Certainly the laying on of hands is in the Bible. That has not been in dispute.

Much love!

 

[marks]

In 1 Cor 4, Paul seems to be saying that there are sins in his life which he is not even aware of, but God knows all about them. Paul said, our own judgement of ourselves or any human court is not the one that matters. It's Gods judgement of us that matters more than anyone else.

I actually made the same points in the post you are answering, so we are in agreement in this. We are not the qualified judges of ourselves or anyone else. So "sinless", "not sinless", to me, that's a moot point. We simple won't know, so there's no reason to make it a "thing".

I'm not aware of an verse in the Bible that tells us a child of God will of necessity sin throughout their lives.

Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about a state of sinlessless, I'm talking about a state in which we are not aware of any sin, or any call from the flesh to sin. Where we are in a state of love, and joy, and peace, and self-control, and all that is in the fruit of the Spirit. Not, a little here, a little there, getting better, but rather, walking in the Spirit, with the fruit of the Spirit the description of my life.

I'm aware of passages that teach that our flesh is not improved until our resurrection/harpadzo transformation, that it will throughout our lives remain in conflict with our spirit. Endless war.

And I'm aware of passages which teach that we now have power over our flesh, and can transcend it, and not be subject to it's power, which really is no power, only the illusion of a past power, a power it once had over us, and now seems to have the same power.

Those verses in the book of Galatians are exhortations, Paul is simply exhorting believers to make every effort to remain faithful to their profession of faith. He knows we can't continue walking without stumbling, while we are in this corrupt body of death.

These are instructions to how we are to live our lives, in a successful Christian walk.

2 Peter 1:8-10 KJV
8) For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9) But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10) Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Paul is really encouraging believers to war against against our sinful desires, until the end. We don't receive the final victory over sin in this life, we receive that in the life to come.

What I'm reading is the admonition that I am to walk in the Spirit, with the encouragement that by walking in the Spirit, I won't do what the flesh wants.

There are other places where the war, the race, the contest, the proving grounds, all these are in Scripture. Here, it is the method. Do you want to not sin? Walk in the Spirit and you won't.

So how do we walk in the Spirit? Like Scripture tells it? That's the discussion. Is it by exercising our faith? Is it from a touch from God? I think both are valid.

Does that mean that someone in this Way will never ever sin again? No one is asserting that.

The Bible is very clear, all are sinners, no one is exempt. The Bible is equally clear that, The one having died is freed from sin, that death being in Christ, on the cross.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

I think we should consider whether "apostolic succession" is false doctrine, sister. I don't mean to offend, but who appointed Paul as an apostle? It was the living resurrected Lord who called and equipped/gifted him and Paul just began to obey and function in his calling/gifting and gathered together congregations of souls he had preached the gospel to and gotten saved.

I don't believe it's a false doctrine.
I believe the gifts are present to this day and I'm aware of the fact that not everyone believes this (I don't mean you - I don't know what you believe).

Jesus said AS THE FATHER SENT ME, SO I SEND YOU.
And then who came after the ones Jesus sent?
Do they not have any authority?

I'm not specifically replying to Apostolic succession...I think we were discussing the laying on of hands.
As stated, authority is passed on.
If you think a person could just walk into a church and take charge - so be it.

I don't believe this is how it works and I don't believe it's how Jesus meant it to work.
HE gave authority to the Apostles, they passed it on...and here we are.

The Protestant denominations have a problem with this because the Reformation broke the line of succession.
That's something we have to grapple with - not deny that it's been the way/method since the beginning.

Something I would question is why any particular decent-sized congregation doesn't already have pastoring gifts among them and have to automatically look outside their circle for pastors, making "seminary" training the qualification. So many churches are run like the world runs businesses, and not in the way and simplicity of Christ, the Way of the Spirit.

Maybe because there's A LOT to know before becoming a pastor?
Do we want to be like the JWs - everyone in their congregation is a "pastor".
Everyone gets to preach at one time or another.

I think we need pastors that have studied the bible and understand the language and culture of those times.
Just as someone discovering us 2,000 years from now would have to use hermeneutics and a lot of study to really know what we believed or how we lived, or how we spoke...our language.

How can two walk together except they be agreed? The Lord is able to lead and guide both parties if they both have ears to hear and willing hearts. He will not tell one party one thing and the other party something that contradicts what He tells the first party. If you see that then one party has to be hearing wrong.

Wow. Yes! And I've been saying this for years now.
How come we disagree?
Isn't the Holy Spirit speaking the same to all believers?

This is my point exactly.
Maybe we hear what we want to hear?

 

[GodsGrace]

No, the transfer of Jesus' giving His apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins of others. Certainly the laying on of hands is in the Bible. That has not been in dispute.

Much love!

Then could you please explain/exegete John 20:23?

It sure sounds like Jesus is doing exactly that:
giving the Apostles the authority to forgive sins or retain sins.

John 20:23
22Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

[marks]

Of course, but the question in such a state is 'how do I get out of the flesh?' which was Pauls'.


Yes I like the phrase 'transcendant'.

I believe that was Paul's answer to how. He recognized that sin lived in the flesh, but in Christ, he transcends the flesh.

One one has been there, it is never forgotten and one never ceases to long for it again, out of love for God.

Yes. That's the heart of the matter for me. There is easy intimacy with God. Sometimes a bit overwhelming! But that's how God is!

I'm finding that by choosing to trust in Jesus' death having fully and completely reconciled me to God, and that choosing to trust His love for me, by choosing to not let circumstances around me, or within me, to bring doubt to my mind, then I am in that place, that this is walking in the Spirit.

My problem is consistency, but I'm finding it to be like a muscle, and I'm in training.

In these times when God just lifts us up to that higher ground, there is no effort, no intent needed, I was just there. Now I need intent. I've felt for some time that when God did this for me it was remedial. That if I knew how to walk in faith and not sight, then there would have been no need. Of course, I have to add, what in the world to I know?? Right?

The reality is that I want your answer, because it doesn't take effort, but I believe my answer regardless. I think that learning to walk in the Spirit by faith is better for me, and brings a better crown.

He is speaking of his martyrdom which was also known in the generation removed believers as perfection.

I don't think so. I think that where he says being made conformable to Jesus' death, at least as I've studied this, that he is speaking of the same kind of submission and humility that Jesus had as He was dying on the cross.

Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: (1 Thess 2:10)

Wow that was a big claim to make if he and the others were still not conformed don't you think?

Yes, I do! Paul lived his life apparently with a clear conscience, though, again, he said himself that this didn't mean he was without fault, as only Jesus is the truly fit judge of a man's motives and heart.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Then could you please explain/exegete John 20:23?

It sure sounds like Jesus is doing exactly that:
giving the Apostles the authority to forgive sins or retain sins.

John 20:23
22Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Yes, that's what Jesus did. The Father sent Jesus, and gave Jesus authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends them just as He had been sent, and gives them the same authority Jesus was given, to forgive or retain other men's sins.

But the Apostles don't have their own apostles, they aren't sending them out, they don't have the same authority God has to grant this to others, to forgive or retain other men's sins.

It's clear to me that this is what Jesus did, and equally clear to me that there is nothing in Scripture about this authority being passed on. There is teaching of gifts, and what those entail, and this is not included.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, that's what Jesus did. The Father sent Jesus, and gave Jesus authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends them just as He had been sent, and gives them the same authority Jesus was given, to forgive or retain other men's sins.

But the Apostles don't have their own apostles, they aren't sending them out, they don't have the same authority God has to grant this to others, to forgive or retain other men's sins.

It's clear to me that this is what Jesus did, and equally clear to me that there is nothing in Scripture about this authority being passed on. There is teaching of gifts, and what those entail, and this is not included.

Much love!

OK.
Understood.
So this forgiving would end with the Apostles.
In fact, yes, forgiveness of sins is not one of the gifts.
(so it wouldn't be passed on).


This verse has always bothered me.
You've given a good explanation.

I think a lot would depend on whether or not Apostolic succession is correct.
Of course, the CC believes in it....
That doesn't make it be right or wrong...

 

[marks]

OK.
Understood.
So this forgiving would end with the Apostles.
In fact, yes, forgiveness of sins is not one of the gifts.
(so it wouldn't be passed on).


This verse has always bothered me.
You've given a good explanation.

I think a lot would depend on whether or not Apostolic succession is correct.
Of course, the CC believes in it....
That doesn't make it be right or wrong...

It bothered me for a long time too!

Much love!

 

[marks]

You said 'But don't you add a third condition, someone who has been called but not reborn yet?' so I took it you meant predestination. I see now what you did mean.

This is why I dislike labeling, there is always extra baggage.

David was convicted of sin, then repented I assume. Having given this some thought, I wonder whether the ones who were not coming under the old covenant and the need for animal sacrifice, but believed in the new covenant of faith, yet still sinned, as those who had been Illumined by the truth. If so I expect God will be merciful towards them. I will give this more thought.

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV
11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Only Israel had the covenant, and that covenant was of obedience. Faith in God's mercy was required else there would be no confidence in the sacrifice. But without the sacrifice the sinner was in even more sin, considering the Law required what it required.

Consider David's meditations on the Law in Psalm 119. I think this Psalm also shows the heart of Jesus as He walked the earth.

Yes but what had been lost during that time of unfruitfulness.

What has been lost in my life in my unfruitfulness? Most of it, I think!! I have much sadness over this!

Alive but still joined to the soul which needed to be separated.

What is the soul, though? Isn't it the mind, our feelings, and thoughts, and memories, and affections, and so forth?

What I see is that we are born fleshy beings, and these fleshy beings produce fleshy minds - the psuche. That being reborn, we now have life derived from the Spirit, instead of the flesh. But the fleshy repository of the psuche is like a train track that wants to go a certain way. Our new life of the Spirit wants to go a different way, and has to learn how to change tracks, and we are like a big switching yard, we can go this way, we can go that way, and we have to be trained, and to practice, making those choices that put us on the track going where we want to go.

Actually, I still like the wrecked car analogy better.

As our spirit becomes more dominant over our flesh, our minds are renewed, and our psuche more reflects the person Jesus recreated us as.

I do too but since being Illumined, I take the scripture as a whole and only what has been revealed to me as certainty. There are things that I am still learning about. At the back of my interpretation, is the understanding which has been given directly and I do look to others have been illumined and only accept anything that does not contradict scripture.

And I only cherrypick? Hm. Please remember, if I have a different understanding of something, that does not mean I'm overlooking something. I mean, it's possible I could be overlooking something, I'm sure I must be overlooking things, but that's true for all of us, isn't it?

It's interesting to me, you've said here that you interpret the Bible according to the understanding you've received. Personally I feel your understandings are in direct conflict with certain Scriptures. Just the same, I'm interested in discussing and testing.

I'd say for myself, at the back of my interpretation is the words of Scripture. I have my understandings, but that only comes to bear in Scripture if Scripture teaches something regardless of whether I think I have an understanding or not.

Perhaps you have greater confidence in your thoughts and understandings than I do. I look for certainty that exists in the Word itself, even though I remain convinced that God speaks to me, that He gives me clear understandings of Scriptures, things like that. These lead me to examine the Scriptures, to see if these things be so. I've found great confidence in the clear teachings of Scripture.

OK I thought like you once.

To me this is a red flag, like a ship loosed from it's mooring, adrift. I don't mean that like it may sound . . . if any thing I say comes across poorly, please know I don't mean it that way.

Much love!

 

[Christian Soldier]

I actually made the same points in the post you are answering, so we are in agreement in this. We are not the qualified judges of ourselves or anyone else. So "sinless", "not sinless", to me, that's a moot point. We simple won't know, so there's no reason to make it a "thing".

I'm not aware of an verse in the Bible that tells us a child of God will of necessity sin throughout their lives.

Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about a state of sinlessless, I'm talking about a state in which we are not aware of any sin, or any call from the flesh to sin. Where we are in a state of love, and joy, and peace, and self-control, and all that is in the fruit of the Spirit. Not, a little here, a little there, getting better, but rather, walking in the Spirit, with the fruit of the Spirit the description of my life.

I'm aware of passages that teach that our flesh is not improved until our resurrection/harpadzo transformation, that it will throughout our lives remain in conflict with our spirit. Endless war.

And I'm aware of passages which teach that we now have power over our flesh, and can transcend it, and not be subject to it's power, which really is no power, only the illusion of a past power, a power it once had over us, and now seems to have the same power.

These are instructions to how we are to live our lives, in a successful Christian walk.

2 Peter 1:8-10 KJV
8) For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9) But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10) Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:


What I'm reading is the admonition that I am to walk in the Spirit, with the encouragement that by walking in the Spirit, I won't do what the flesh wants.

There are other places where the war, the race, the contest, the proving grounds, all these are in Scripture. Here, it is the method. Do you want to not sin? Walk in the Spirit and you won't.

So how do we walk in the Spirit? Like Scripture tells it? That's the discussion. Is it by exercising our faith? Is it from a touch from God? I think both are valid.

Does that mean that someone in this Way will never ever sin again? No one is asserting that.

The Bible is very clear, all are sinners, no one is exempt. The Bible is equally clear that, The one having died is freed from sin, that death being in Christ, on the cross.

Much love!

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, but from what I have read from you, I get the sense that you believe that walking in the Spirit and exercising your faith are both choices made by the individual.

I hold to Reformed theology, which teaches that these things are received as gifts from God, and we had nothing to do with Gods choice to give them to us while He withholds them from others. So it seems that we hold to radically different theologies.

Reformed theology asserts that salvation is all of the Lord and we have nothing to do with our salvation. While I can see you hold to the Arminian view which asserts that salvation is a joint effort between God and man.
If I list a bunch of verses which confirm that man has nothing to do with his salvation, you will reply by listing a bunch of verses which exhort us to walk in the Spirit.

There's no need for us to get into a heated debate over which version of the gospel is the correct one. The Church disintegrated in the 1500's into countless denominations, each of the denominations hold to one of the gospel version, namely "Synergistic man and God" or "Monergistic God alone".
The Church has never reached a consensus on this issue and the debate has been raging for the past 500 years with no clear winner. That's why I suggested, we don't get bogged down in a debate over the two gospels.

The worlds greatest theologians and bible scholars have been fiercely debating it for 500 years, and they failed to settle the issue, so we shouldn't expect to resolve it here.
Below is a basic table, outlining thew two gospel versions, as you can see they are radically opposed views and both use the bible to support their positions.

http://heavenslight.org/wp-content/...vinism_and_Arminianism_TULIP_Chart_1_2007.pdf

 

[Brakelite]

As stated, authority is passed on.

I had the above quote stored as I scrolled down, then saw that Marks had responded. I agree with him. Laying on of hands is certainly a valid practise. In fact, the Bible says take care not to do so suddenly...it has a profound spiritual impact. I remember when I had been a Christian for only a few months, and there was a group of young people visit to encourage me to "receive the holy Spirit", as in the baptism. Sure you can pray for me, I said as they gathered around. Then they laid hands on me and I reacted very sharply and said "No!". Don't do that. It was instinctive. I wasn't denying the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I didn't know these people, and I was instinctively protecting myself. I believe I was absolutely right to do so.
For me, the laying on of hands belongs to elders in good standing and reputation. I wouldn't let just anyone to do so.

 

[GodsGrace]

I had the above quote stored as I scrolled down, then saw that Marks had responded. I agree with him. Laying on of hands is certainly a valid practise. In fact, the Bible says take care not to do so suddenly...it has a profound spiritual impact. I remember when I had been a Christian for only a few months, and there was a group of young people visit to encourage me to "receive the holy Spirit", as in the baptism. Sure you can pray for me, I said as they gathered around. Then they laid hands on me and I reacted very sharply and said "No!". Don't do that. It was instinctive. I wasn't denying the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I didn't know these people, and I was instinctively protecting myself. I believe I was absolutely right to do so.
For me, the laying on of hands belongs to elders in good standing and reputation. I wouldn't let just anyone to do so.

Brakelite, this is a very important topic for me.
You're probably speaking of a specific church that does this and I agree with you 100%.
I do believe that there could be a laying on of hands that is done spiritually and which can be accepted by God....
for instance, some Christians lay their hand on the head of a child to wish him a good day as they leave for school....
It's really more a blessing, but laying on of hands is used even for blessings - a priest will hold up his hand, for instance.

Here's how I understand this and I'd like to say that I'm not Catholic but I have to agree with that church for this reason....
Peter went to Rome and became one of the first 5 Popes that were put in charge of different regions.
Then HE passed on authority to the next person that would take charge because this is what Jesus taught them and also what you are addressing.

And so on down the line.
I do believe that the CC is the original church and that Apostolic succession is real.

Then, whether or not we can agree with each and every doctrine of theirs is another topic.

What do you think?

 

[GodsGrace]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, but from what I have read from you, I get the sense that you believe that walking in the Spirit and exercising your faith are both choices made by the individual.

I hold to Reformed theology, which teaches that these things are received as gifts from God, and we had nothing to do with Gods choice to give them to us while He withholds them from others. So it seems that we hold to radically different theologies.

Reformed theology asserts that salvation is all of the Lord and we have nothing to do with our salvation. While I can see you hold to the Arminian view which asserts that salvation is a joint effort between God and man.
If I list a bunch of verses which confirm that man has nothing to do with his salvation, you will reply by listing a bunch of verses which exhort us to walk in the Spirit.

There's no need for us to get into a heated debate over which version of the gospel is the correct one. The Church disintegrated in the 1500's into countless denominations, each of the denominations hold to one of the gospel version, namely "Synergistic man and God" or "Monergistic God alone".
The Church has never reached a consensus on this issue and the debate has been raging for the past 500 years with no clear winner. That's why I suggested, we don't get bogged down in a debate over the two gospels.

The worlds greatest theologians and bible scholars have been fiercely debating it for 500 years, and they failed to settle the issue, so we shouldn't expect to resolve it here.
Below is a basic table, outlining thew two gospel versions, as you can see they are radically opposed views and both use the bible to support their positions.

http://heavenslight.org/wp-content/...vinism_and_Arminianism_TULIP_Chart_1_2007.pdf

Christian Soldier,
your post was right above a reply of mine so I coudn't help seeing it.
I say this because I also hesitate to argue about reformed theology, although, as far as I'm concerned, it would be a very important discussion for the simple reason that reformed theology changes the nature of God....no other denomination does this.

I'm not going to look at your chart because I don't know what arminianism is and don't care to learn.

I would like to say this to you.....
My feeling is that ANY theology that was INVENTED in the near past cannot be a correct theology.
I bring the JWs and the Mormons to mind.

HOW could anything that was not seen for 1,500 years possibly be correct?

Were theologians dumb before this?
And I sure hope you don't bring up Augustine...even the CC has abolished his ideas which were accepted back then for very specific reasons. No other ECF believed in destination or the absence of free will.

Just a thought...