S
- Status
S
Seeking_God
Guest
Peter was not chief leader of the Apostles.
Once Jesus asked what the disciples thought about Him. The apostle Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus commended Peter, saying, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:16-18).
What is “the rock” upon which the Church is built? Some say it is Peter; others think it is Peter’s confession, “Your are the Christ.”
In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).
The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.
We need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.
Genesis 49:24
But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel
Psalm 118:22The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 21:44
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mark 12:10
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Luke 20:17
And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luke 20:18
Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder
Acts 4:11
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 Peter 2:6
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1 Peter 2:7
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
H
honeysuckle
Guest
The Bible gives who clear answers? You? What about the other Protestants who vehemently disagree with you on many of the rock solid claims you’ve spouted off here? Are they all going to hell because they disagree with YOU? Or are they just confused and wrong? Either way, that’s quite the self-centered belief system you have going for you.
The statement above you’ve made is obviously backwards. What it should say is that we need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Bible because the Church gives us clear answers.
It cannot be any other way, because if the Bible were so clear there would not be such vehement disagreement among even those who belong to the same Protestant denomination.
B
brkn1
Guest
Again, we see more false arguments about the rule of Faith.
This thread is supposed to be about whether the Bible has the final rule of Faith as opposed to those who say that God’s Word can be bound with their traditions and Council’s decrees.
Where is this this claim that someone is saying that one must agree with some “YOU” to be saved?
It is the Bible that some are claiming has the final say, not a “YOU”, which argument might be better pointed at those who declare “THEIR” Council’s word as the final rule of Faith.
As far as the right to bind anything on earth as some claim for themselves from Matthew 18:18, where does it say in the Bible that this includes the right to bind Scripture?
(2 Timothy 2:9) “…, but the word of God is not bound.”
H
honeysuckle
Guest
Once again, an example of inferior reasoning skills. Your question is confused and misses the entire point of the argument. Why are we to believe Seeking God’s interpretation of long reams of scripture, and his claim that those long reams or scripture prove the Rapture will occur, or prove that stained glass is akin to idolatrous, or prove any other false anti-Catholic dogma? Why are we to believe HIS interepretation, and not another Protestant interpretation? That is the question and you have no answer, as you have missed entirely the salient point, which is that the Church interprets the Bible, not other way around. You would by necessity agree with this, as I am certain you have not developed your theological beliefs from independent Bible reading, but with what you have been indoctrinated with by your Church. So why your Church and not the Church that Christ founded?
Absoutley it is YOU. The Bible does not have a clear, definitive answer for every question, it is INTERPRETED.
As for “those who declare their councils words as the final rule of Faith” how can anyone be this ignorant? YOU as a Protestant have declared multiple church councils as the FINAL RULE OF FAITH. If you had not done so, you would not have a canon.
DUH???
B
brkn1
Guest
I had to condense your superior reasoning skills here.
Your last word sums up the essence of what the rest was all about. Good job!
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
**
Originally Posted by wisdomseeker
What is the foundation and pillar of truth? What is a pillar? Is the pillar of truth the Bible? If you think so, then why does the Bible say it is the Church? 1Tim 3:15
Jesus is the pillar of Truth
1 Timothy 3:15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Hun!!!
I thought God is the Truth, now you call Him the pillar and support of the truth. interesting.
and St Paul went on to say: during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitfull spirits and doctrines that come from devils, seduced by the hypocrisy of liars.**
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdomseeker
What is the foundation and pillar of truth? What is a pillar? Is the pillar of truth the Bible? If you think so, then why does the Bible say it is the Church? 1Tim 3:15
Jesus is the pillar of Truth
1 Timothy 3:15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Hun!!!
I thought God is the Truth, now you call Him the pillar and support of the truth. interesting.
and St Paul went on to say: during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitfull spirits and doctrines that come from devils, seduced by the hypocrisy of liars.**
G
Gamera
Guest
We do both. It isn’t “either / or.”
“Pay all of them their dues, taxes to who,m tazes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due,” Romans 13:7.
“… but we proclaim Christ crucified…,” 1 Cor. 1:23.
H
honeysuckle
Guest
So what’s your’s answer to this? Nothing? Well that’s really a shame. Says a lot about the value most Fundamentalists place on education.I had to condense your superior reasoning skills here.
Your last word sums up the essence of what the rest was all about. Good job!
Since you have no answer, I will say for the sake of fairness that there are valid arguments that surround the doctrine of Sola Scritpura, but those arguments involve testing the premise that the Church has not contradicted Scripture. The only Protestant arguments for Sola Scriptura that are valid, good arguments have nothing to do with what most Fundamentalists think Sola Scriptura is, which is the idea that the Bible fell from the sky one day with Jesus’ words in red and for the last 2000 years Christians have been carrying it around, therefore, if something is not explicity and literally written in the Bible, it is false. Those are the anti-intellectual beliefs that masquerade as Sola Scriptura that give all Christians a bad name.
B
brkn1
Guest
I agree with the argument that anything not found in Scripture must at least line up and not contradict Scripture.
Paul gave a very clear explanation of the gospel of Christ.
Paul warned us, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach ANY other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9)
The gospel is clear about the inferiority of man’s tradtions, when compared to Scripture.
You can not find any verse in the Bible where Jesus said traditions had precedence over Scripture. It was almost always a stinging rebuke against any tradition when it was compared to or related against God’s Word.
Roman Catholics are good at word games. You practically have to be a lawyer to get through some of that Catholic Encyclopedia talk. Give me that good old fashioned Bible reading. I have to leave the superior reasoning skills and intellectual abilities to those who find the simple gospel of Jesus Christ to be inadequately put forth by God in His Word. You can keep your additions too.
E
Evlogitos
Guest
Actually, the traditions of men were always condemned against the doctrine of Christ. In Christ’s (and Paul’s) day, of course, there was no New Testament. I’m sure you’re aware that Paul repeatedly instructs his flock to hold fast to the tradition they have received from him.
The tradition does not have precedence over Scripture; the tradition works in harmony with Scripture, illuminating it and sanctifying it.
To illustrate the role of tradition in the Church, let me ask six simple questions:
The tradition does not have precedence over Scripture; the tradition works in harmony with Scripture, illuminating it and sanctifying it.
To illustrate the role of tradition in the Church, let me ask six simple questions:
- Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?
- Why is the Gospel of Mark Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas is not? How do you know?
- Why is the Book of Esther Scripture, while the Book of Wisdom is not? How do you know?
- Why is the Book of Hebrews Scripture, while the Shepherd of Hermas is not? How do you know?
- Who was the first person in the early church who accepted and read a complete New Testament? What year was it? How do you know?
- Since the New Testament was not even fully written until about 95 A.D., how did faithful Christians arrive at correct doctrine and practice before the New Testament was written? How do you know this alternative method for obtaining the Truth is no longer permitted? How did Christians arrive at correct doctrine in the years before the 27-book New Testament canon was settled?
B
brkn1
Guest
Some quick answers to your questions:Actually, the traditions of men were always condemned against the doctrine of Christ. In Christ’s (and Paul’s) day, of course, there was no New Testament. I’m sure you’re aware that Paul repeatedly instructs his flock to hold fast to the tradition they have received from him.
The tradition does not have precedence over Scripture; the tradition works in harmony with Scripture, illuminating it and sanctifying it.
To illustrate the role of tradition in the Church, let me ask six simple questions:
Peace.
- Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?
- Why is the Gospel of Mark Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas is not? How do you know?
- Why is the Book of Esther Scripture, while the Book of Wisdom is not? How do you know?
- Why is the Book of Hebrews Scripture, while the Shepherd of Hermas is not? How do you know?
- Who was the first person in the early church who accepted and read a complete New Testament? What year was it? How do you know?
- Since the New Testament was not even fully written until about 95 A.D., how did faithful Christians arrive at correct doctrine and practice before the New Testament was written? How do you know this alternative method for obtaining the Truth is no longer permitted? How did Christians arrive at correct doctrine in the years before the 27-book New Testament canon was settled?
- The Holy Spirit inspired it and therefore was the true Writer.
- I don’t care about the gospel of Thomas. It is not in my Bible and so I can conclude the Holy Spirit deemed it unnecessary and not written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
- I find Hebrews to be one of the most obviously Holy Spirit inspired books of the Bible. It is the finest of all writing. The human, inspired to write it by the HS, does not even bother to take any credit as the human writer of what the Holy Spirit put forth in that book. Again, I could care less about the Shepherd of Hermas. I leave the study of that book to the “wise” ones.
- I confess ignorance here and unashamedly so. I just don’t care. Do Roman Catholics have to know this stuff?
- The Bible speaks for itself. I find no contradictions in it. There are some areas that I see as impossible for us to fully understand; but that is part of the proof that it is God speaking and not a clever “wise” man. It is absolutely amazing in its truth, revelation. and present fulfillment of much of its prophecy. No other book comes even the slightest bit close to its perfection. There is no need for any additions to its perfection. It is complete and more than adequate for a true seeker guided by the Holy Spirit.
If we stick to preaching only what God’s Word has in it, we can’t go wrong. Anyone who does go wrong, is not being guided by the Holy Spirit, Whose role is to guide us into all Truth by God’s Word.
E
Evlogitos
Guest
Ahh, a presuppositionalist. 
Okay, so let me follow up, then. Suppose you were to go to Ethiopia and go to church there and read their Bible. Their Bible contains many additional books in both the Old and New Testament, including Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Clement, etc.
So a very holy and faithful Ethiopian Christian goes up to you and tells you, “Brother brkn1, Scripture is so wonderful, and all of it is so clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit, especially 1 Clement and the Book of Wisdom. Don’t you agree?”
What is your response? What are you going to tell him to persuade him that he needs to adopt your Bible, which you presumably believe to be a more accurate and inerrant canon?
Now:
6b. So on what rule of faith did the pre-New Testament Christians base their doctrines and practices, since it was impossible to use Scripture Alone? How do you know?
6c. Since your answer must necessarily include something outside of Scripture (since Scripture as we know it didn’t yet exist), doesn’t your answer suggest that the earliest Christians did not use Scripture Alone for their faith?
6d. Why must Christians today adhere strictly to Scripture Alone instead of utilizing this alternative principle of authority used by the earliest Christians? How do you know?
6e. Following up on question 5, since the 27-book New Testament did not exist until at least 367 A.D.–hundreds of years after the Apostles–how did a Christian discover correct doctrine and practice in, say, 170 A.D.?
Thanks for your patience. I’m honestly curious as to how you’ll answer.
Okay, so let me follow up, then. Suppose you were to go to Ethiopia and go to church there and read their Bible. Their Bible contains many additional books in both the Old and New Testament, including Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Clement, etc.
So a very holy and faithful Ethiopian Christian goes up to you and tells you, “Brother brkn1, Scripture is so wonderful, and all of it is so clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit, especially 1 Clement and the Book of Wisdom. Don’t you agree?”
What is your response? What are you going to tell him to persuade him that he needs to adopt your Bible, which you presumably believe to be a more accurate and inerrant canon?
Now:
- Of course the Holy Spirit inspired it, but which human actually penned it, and how do you know? And what person or entity authoritatively decided to put it in the Bible for you to read?
- & 3. & 4. Doesn’t this mean you trust that the people who compiled the Bible had infallible discernment of what books were and were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
- Well, I’ll spill the beans and say 367 A.D. My point here is to ask: If Scripture Alone is the rule of Christian life, then was anyone from the Apostles to 367 A.D. a “Bible Christian,” without even having a complete and accurate Bible? Why or why not?
- You did not answer the question. I’ll break it down into sub-parts to make it easier for you. Please make an effort to read carefully, though.
6b. So on what rule of faith did the pre-New Testament Christians base their doctrines and practices, since it was impossible to use Scripture Alone? How do you know?
6c. Since your answer must necessarily include something outside of Scripture (since Scripture as we know it didn’t yet exist), doesn’t your answer suggest that the earliest Christians did not use Scripture Alone for their faith?
6d. Why must Christians today adhere strictly to Scripture Alone instead of utilizing this alternative principle of authority used by the earliest Christians? How do you know?
6e. Following up on question 5, since the 27-book New Testament did not exist until at least 367 A.D.–hundreds of years after the Apostles–how did a Christian discover correct doctrine and practice in, say, 170 A.D.?
Thanks for your patience. I’m honestly curious as to how you’ll answer.
S
Seeking_God
Guest
1 Timothy 3:15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Jesus is the pillar of Truth and the foundation through who all things were made.
John 1-3
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Can you not undertstand Scripture in your desire to misquote and put catholic tradition above the WORD OF GOD? Nice try at twisting and putting words in my mouth which I didn’t say.
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus is the Truth!!
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Matthew7:13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Matthew 24:4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Matthew 9:11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them,** They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick**.
13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Isaiah 64:6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one
Romans 3:23For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9
Jesus became/IS Head over all things to the church which is His body, and in this ministry He ceases not to intercede and advocate for the saved (Eph. 1:22–23; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1) Jesus is the High Priest and Head of His church. Not the Pope, not a reverand. The churchs body is not a building, but those who believe in God. Jesus DOES not intercede and advocate for any brick and mortar building, BUT FOR THE SAVED!!! Amen
S
Seeking_God
Guest
deceptioninthechurch.com/index.htmlAhh, a presuppositionalist.
Okay, so let me follow up, then. Suppose you were to go to Ethiopia and go to church there and read their Bible. Their Bible contains many additional books in both the Old and New Testament, including Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Clement, etc.
So a very holy and faithful Ethiopian Christian goes up to you and tells you, “Brother brkn1, Scripture is so wonderful, and all of it is so clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit, especially 1 Clement and the Book of Wisdom. Don’t you agree?”
What is your response? What are you going to tell him to persuade him that he needs to adopt your Bible, which you presumably believe to be a more accurate and inerrant canon?
In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we are given a clear description of the rapture: “the dead in Christ will rise, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord.”
the fact that the word “rapture” does not appear in the Bible as an argument against its validity. The issue should be whether or not the concept of the rapture appears in the Bible.
With 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 giving us such a clear description of the rapture, you would have to conclude some people are just playing games with the Word of God.
**Their logic runs very thin because a huge number of words don’t appear in the Bible, including the word “Bible.” **Because God’s Word was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, one could truthfully say that no English words are found in the Bible. Let’s take a look at 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 in the original Greek:
4:16 oti autos o kurios en keleusmati en fwnh arcaggelou kai en salpiggi qeou katabhsetai ap ouranou kai oi nekroi en cristw anasthsontai prwton 4:17 epeita hmeis oi zwntes oi perileipomenoi ama sun autois arpaghsomeqa en nefelais eis apanthsin tou kuriou eis aera kai outws pantote sun kuriw esomeqa 4:18 wste parakaleite allhlous en tois logois toutois
I don’t see the dead in Christ rising, Jesus descending from Heaven, or us meeting Him in the air. They’re right; the word “rapture” is nowhere to be found. All I see is gobbledygook.
For the record, the word “rapture” comes from the Latin word rapturo, which is a translation of the Greek verb “caught up” that’s found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. You can call it the “pre-trib rapture,” the “pre-trib rapturo,” or the “pre-trib caught up” - it’s all the same thing.
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16
The Catholic church did not exist when Paul penned these words, he was not referring to teachings of Catholicism.
E
Evlogitos
Guest
Seeking_God, I believe you quoted me in error, since nothing you posted remotely addresses anything in the quote. 
B
brkn1
Guest
My answer is going to disappoint you.Ahh, a presuppositionalist.
Okay, so let me follow up, then. Suppose you were to go to Ethiopia and go to church there and read their Bible. Their Bible contains many additional books in both the Old and New Testament, including Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Clement, etc.
So a very holy and faithful Ethiopian Christian goes up to you and tells you, “Brother brkn1, Scripture is so wonderful, and all of it is so clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit, especially 1 Clement and the Book of Wisdom. Don’t you agree?”
What is your response? What are you going to tell him to persuade him that he needs to adopt your Bible, which you presumably believe to be a more accurate and inerrant canon?
Thanks for your patience. I’m honestly curious as to how you’ll answer.
- You did not answer the question. I’ll break it down into sub-parts to make it easier for you. Please make an effort to read carefully, though.
If the Holy Spirit leads me to convince an Ethiopian brother in Christ to talk about the Book of Wisdom and 1 Clement, I will gladly sit down in communion with my brother to listen and discuss such matters as you describe.
I will agree with what lines up with Scripture and I will point out where the Spirit shows me that the books are in error.
The Spirit would have given me the desire to research all of that information beforehand, if it was necessary for the task. I have no such desire at this time.
The actual convincing of either the Ethiopian or myself, about any error in our understanding, is going to have to be the sole work of the Holy Spirit, just as Phillip was provided with the opportune timing and means of being used by the Spirit to bring the Word of salvation to the Ethiopian Eunuch.
I do not know what I would tell him. It will have to be as Jesus said that it will not be us, but the Spirit that does that speaking in such a situation.
If that makes me a presuppositionalist, then I praise God for such a description that my “anti-intellectual” abilities can not even comprehend the true meaning of.
E
Evlogitos
Guest
The problem being that the Ethiopian believes these books are Scripture, and naturally Scripture lines up with itself in his mind as well as yours.
BTW, the Spirit has led me to tell you that you should study and know the factual basis for your acceptance of the Scriptures, that your faith may be increased and refined.
I still would very, very much like your thoughtful answers to my questions 1. through 6e., in the interest of both of us being Bereans and searching earnestly for the Truth.
“Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.”
G
Gamera
Guest
No, that isn’t “the Rapture” at all. 1 Thess 4:17 says we will be caught up in the air to GREET the Lord when He comes back — not to be taken away by Him! Just like the five wise maidens went out to GREET the bridegroom in the parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens (Matthew chapter 25), then went back inside with the Bridegroom and shut the door, excluding the five foolish maidens from the wedding feast. 1 Thess 4:17 says we shall rise in the air to greet Jesus, not to be taken away by Him. “The Rapture” is a false man-made doctrine which claims Jesus will pluck us away from this world. It isn’t described at all in Scripture, “clearly” or otherwise.
B
brkn1
Guest
My response will have to depend upon the Holy Spirit’s timing, so you must be patient in the mean time. It may never happen, but one never knows.The problem being that the Ethiopian believes these books are Scripture, and naturally Scripture lines up with itself in his mind as well as yours.
BTW, the Spirit has led me to tell you that you should study and know the factual basis for your acceptance of the Scriptures, that your faith may be increased and refined.
I still would very, very much like your thoughtful answers to my questions 1. through 6e., in the interest of both of us being Bereans and searching earnestly for the Truth.
“Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.”
The Spirit has given me pause to consider the term (presuppositionalist) you used to describe a person such as myself.
After a little research in the dictionary, I reject that term and cast it back onto the Roman Catholic Church.
An example of why I do so might come from my agreement with what an anti-RCC said about the following:
“Q.—Upon what fallacies does the doctrine of Indulgences rest?”
“A.—1. It (presupposes) that God’s chastisement of love is penal and propitiatory, and that such chastisement extends to life beyond the grave. 2. It (presupposes) that the works of the saints are not only meritorious, but superabundant. 3. It (pressuposes) that to the Pope is committed the general guardianship of ‘the celestial treasures’.”
There is a whole lot of pressupositionalism in that topic alone, though I do not wish to go further into it. I hope it gives sufficient reason why I reject the term.
I might respond to your questions later, but I will not presuppose that you would be all that interested after this post. We should, at least, both be clear about the use of the word “presuppositionalist”.
- Status