THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Tietjen]

Ozzie:

So you reject salvation by grace through faith alone. I was approached by a guy at work who told me essentially the same thing as that pamphlet. I did turn from my *unbelief *and personally put my trust in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. My life has never been the same since!!! I know my Lord and He knows me. I know without a doubt (in fact the moment I turned to Him by faith) that ALL my sins (past, present and future) were put upon Him 2000 years ago, and to this day I do not trust in my own worthiness but I rest in His righteousness which was imputed to me at the time of faith.

What do I think? I think you should read again the pamphlet and do exactly what it requests. Try coming to Christ empty handed, by faith alone, and then, and only then, will you understand those people who were not ashamed to share the Gospel with you (Rom. 2:16-17).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JeffreyGerard:

My response to this center on two points:

1. What does one do to demonstrate to God that we seek
   him with a humble and sincere heart?
2. How do you reconcile your statement with free will?

Bravo. I have not seen free will mentioned in the discussions I have read so far. It is tremendously useful to understanding the role(s) of faith and works. As you point out here:

[JeffreyGerard]after a person chooses to be saved, their free will is not inactivated. They are still very capable of abusing their free
will and choosing to sin while still on earth. This is also how
someone can “choose to be saved” early in their life and still
end up in hell after they die.
Earlier on, I quoted Mary’s distinction between works of faith and works of law.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JeffreyGerard:

My response to this center on two points:

1. What does one do to demonstrate to God that we seek
   him with a humble and sincere heart?
2. How do you reconcile your statement with free will?

Bravo. I have not seen free will mentioned in the discussions I have read so far. It is tremendously useful to understanding the role(s) of faith and works. As you point out here:

JeffreyGerard:

after a person chooses to be saved, their free will is not inactivated. They are still very capable of abusing their free will and choosing to sin while still on earth. This is also how someone can “choose to be saved” early in their life and still
end up in hell after they die.

Earlier on, I quoted Mary’s distinction between works of faith and works of law.

 

[teresas1979]

I know we cannot save ourselves, that it is by the grace of God, a gift freely given. But we must accept the gift by receiving Jesus - that is faith alone. What you say Ozzie is belief alone which isn’t enough. And the reason I think it is possible to lose salvation:

The Once-Saved-Always-Saved Quiz by Gary Hoge

Ezekiel 18:21-22, 24

“If a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.”

“But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.”

Question:
If a wicked man turns away from his sins and is justified, and then turns back to his sins, will he still live?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see those verses

1 Corinthians 11:32

“When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to be condemned with the world?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Extra credit:

According to the Bible, why does God discipline us?
(HINT: “To prevent us from being ___________ with the world”)

2 Timothy 2:12

“If we disown him, he will also disown us.”

Question:

If a Christian repudiates Christ, will he himself be repudiated?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Revelation 22:14, 19

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city . . . If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Question:

If a Christian takes words away from the book of revelation, will he lose his share in the tree of life and to be excluded from the holy city?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Timothy 3:6

“[A potential bishop must not be] a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

2 Peter 2:20-21

“For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

Bonus Essay Question:

If a Christian cannot lose his salvation, even if he becomes entangled in the pollutions of the world, how can such entanglement be described as worse than his first (unsaved) condition? How can it be said of a saved man, “It would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness”?

Galatians 5:19-20

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Question:

If a Christian lives in the manner described by Paul, will he inherit the kingdom of God?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Romans 11:22

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God; sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

Question:

If a Christian does not continue in God’s kindness, will he be cut off?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Corinthians 15:2

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.”

Question:

If a Christian does not hold firmly to the gospel and falls away, will it be said of him that he believed for nothing?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Hebrews 4:1, 11

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it . . . Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”

Question:

If a Christian follows the Israelites example of disobedience, will he enter God’s rest?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

 

[Stingray]

Could you be more specific on what you mean by “His Church” If you are talking about the Catholic Church I agree with you. If not could you answer these:
1)Who was in charge?
2)Does this level of leadership exist today?
*3)*How do you define Church?

By “His Church” I mean Christ’s church, those who have been saved by grace through faith, the body of Christ. You can also call it the Catholic Church. That’s fine with me. In case that’s not clear enough for you, I will answer your questions as well.

1. The shepherd of each flock.
2. Sure
3. It can refer to a particular congregation of believers or to all believers as a whole. The church is the body of Christ, the saved, the elect of God.

*Why do you say that? The Catholic Church claims they are right now and forever.
*

Because, it is true. If you look into it you will find that the books you are referring to were never accepted by the church as being canonical or inspired. It was not until the Council of Trent that those books were accepted as inspired and canonical, but the pronouncements of that council are not binding upon the church.
Catholic Dude:

Minor Differences?

Yes, minor. Liberalism is not a problem exclusive to protestantism. The CC is facing the same battle with liberalism.
Catholic Dude:

So where and who are these people? If you are talking about the Catholic Church I agree with you. I see the leaders all the time. Do you ever listen to EWTN? What do you think about it?

They are pastoring their respective flocks all over the world. If you want to call it the Catholic Church, that’s fine with me. I see the leaders as well. If your talking about EWTN radio, no. I’ve listened to some of their programs online, but that’s about it. I’ve seen more of them on TV, but it’s not something I do regularly. To be honest with you, I will look at it long enough to hear that what they are usually saying is wrong and then I will turn it off. Every once in a while I can watch longer. I watched some lady speaking about abortion one day for about an hour, but I pretty much was in agreement with everything she said.

God bless,
Stingray *

 

[teresas1979]

I know we cannot save ourselves, that it is by the grace of God, a gift freely given. But we must accept the gift by receiving Jesus - that is faith alone. What you say Ozzie is belief alone which IMO isn’t enough. And the reason I think it is possible to lose salvation:

The Once-Saved-Always-Saved Quiz by Gary Hoge

Ezekiel 18:21-22, 24

“If a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.”

“But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.”

Question:
If a wicked man turns away from his sins and is justified, and then turns back to his sins, will he still live?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see those verses

1 Corinthians 11:32

“When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to be condemned with the world?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Extra credit:

According to the Bible, why does God discipline us?
(HINT: “To prevent us from being ___________ with the world”)

2 Timothy 2:12

“If we disown him, he will also disown us.”

Question:

If a Christian repudiates Christ, will he himself be repudiated?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Revelation 22:14, 19

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city . . . If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Question:

If a Christian takes words away from the book of revelation, will he lose his share in the tree of life and to be excluded from the holy city?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Timothy 3:6

“[A potential bishop must not be] a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

2 Peter 2:20-21

“For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

Bonus Essay Question:

If a Christian cannot lose his salvation, even if he becomes entangled in the pollutions of the world, how can such entanglement be described as worse than his first (unsaved) condition? How can it be said of a saved man, “It would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness”?

Galatians 5:19-20

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Question:

If a Christian lives in the manner described by Paul, will he inherit the kingdom of God?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Romans 11:22

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God; sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

Question:

If a Christian does not continue in God’s kindness, will he be cut off?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Corinthians 15:2

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.”

Question:

If a Christian does not hold firmly to the gospel and falls away, will it be said of him that he believed for nothing?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Hebrews 4:1, 11

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it . . . Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”

Question:

If a Christian follows the Israelites example of disobedience, will he enter God’s rest?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

 

[teresas1979]

I know we cannot save ourselves, that it is by the grace of God, a gift freely given. But we must accept the gift by receiving Jesus - that is faith alone. What you say Ozzie is belief alone which IMO isn’t enough. And the reason I think it is possible to lose salvation:

The Once-Saved-Always-Saved Quiz by Gary Hoge

Ezekiel 18:21-22, 24

“If a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.”

“But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.”

Question:
If a wicked man turns away from his sins and is justified, and then turns back to his sins, will he still live?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see those verses

1 Corinthians 11:32

“When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to be condemned with the world?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Extra credit:

According to the Bible, why does God discipline us?
(HINT: “To prevent us from being ___________ with the world”)

2 Timothy 2:12

“If we disown him, he will also disown us.”

Question:

If a Christian repudiates Christ, will he himself be repudiated?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Revelation 22:14, 19

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city . . . If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Question:

If a Christian takes words away from the book of revelation, will he lose his share in the tree of life and to be excluded from the holy city?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Timothy 3:6

“[A potential bishop must not be] a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.”

Question:

Is it possible for a Christian to fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

2 Peter 2:20-21

“For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

Bonus Essay Question:

If a Christian cannot lose his salvation, even if he becomes entangled in the pollutions of the world, how can such entanglement be described as worse than his first (unsaved) condition? How can it be said of a saved man, “It would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness”?

Galatians 5:19-20

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

[teresas1979]

Question:

If a Christian lives in the manner described by Paul, will he inherit the kingdom of God?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Romans 11:22

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God; sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

Question:

If a Christian does not continue in God’s kindness, will he be cut off?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Corinthians 15:2

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.”

Question:

If a Christian does not hold firmly to the gospel and falls away, will it be said of him that he believed for nothing?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Hebrews 4:1, 11

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it . . . Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”

Question:

If a Christian follows the Israelites example of disobedience, will he enter God’s rest?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

 

[Ani_Ibi]

teresas1979:

we must accept the gift by receiving Jesus - that is faith alone. What you say Ozzie is belief alone which isn’t enough.

Oh a powerful distinction.:yup:

teresas1979:

I’m going to pretend I didn’t see those verses

 

[Ignatius]

Ozzie:

1. A little prepositional phrase in the above verse destroys your assertion: "the pillar and foundation OF truth." The “Church” is never described in the Scriptures as being the truth, but it is to be the supporter of it.

I corrected your mis-quote above.

Speaking specifically of the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

Scripture says “Scripture is suitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” It does not speak of “scripture alone”.

Sola Scriptura claims that any doctrine not found in scripture may be false. Since Sola Scriptura is not found in the scriputres, it is a False, man made doctrine.

May the Holy Spirit lead you to the foundation and foundation of Truth. God Bless you.

 

[Ignatius]

teresas1979:

Question:

If a Christian lives in the manner described by Paul, will he inherit the kingdom of God?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Romans 11:22

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God; sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

Question:

If a Christian does not continue in God’s kindness, will he be cut off?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

1 Corinthians 15:2

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.”

Question:

If a Christian does not hold firmly to the gospel and falls away, will it be said of him that he believed for nothing?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Hebrews 4:1, 11

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it . . . Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”

Question:

If a Christian follows the Israelites example of disobedience, will he enter God’s rest?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse

Outstanding post, Teresa. With your permission, I’m going to copy it for future use.

May the love of God the Father, the peace of Jesus Christ His Son, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1. Who was in charge?: The shepherd of each flock. I was sure there was only supposed to be one flock and one shepherd. What if 2 shepherds violently disagree?
2. Does this level of leadership exist today? Sure Can you point to any thing in the world with the same level of authority other that the CC?
3. How do you define Church?: It can refer to a particular congregation of believers or to all believers as a whole. The church is the body of Christ, the saved, the elect of God. The Church is not an invisible white castle in the clouds, there is one supreme congregation known as the CC visible to all. This has been passed down through the years. Non Catholic believers dont have the full truth.

---

Because, it is true. If you look into it you will find that the books you are referring to were never accepted by the church as being canonical or inspired. It was not until the Council of Trent that those books were accepted as inspired and canonical, but the pronouncements of that council are not binding upon the church.
What are you saying? That they are included in all Catholic Bibles and even protestant Bibles up to around 1825, but they were never accepted by the very church that uses them? Who is the authority to decide what is inspired? The Council of Trent was 100% Catholic Church so how are they not binding?. They didnt just wake up one day and say, Father, I had a dream that this book doesnt belong in the Bible. They used those books for years, then, now and forever. The reason why it was made official in the way you see it is because there were “shepherds” that wanted to trash the books, and who for some egotistical reason those “shepherds” thought they had the power to do something like that.

*----
*Minor Differences?: *
Yes, minor. Liberalism is not a problem exclusive to protestantism. The CC is facing the same battle with liberalism.
You must live in a small town. The most ultra right conservative protestant churches disagree with eachother and even hate eachother. That is not liberalism. When one church names itself after a man like Luther that church is putting luther above Christ. Christ didnt name his church after a human, especially one who lived 1500 years after the fact. The name of the one true church is The Church becuase there is only one.
*Also there are “churches” that are splinter groups of “churches”. When you see a sign that says “First United Twice Reformed Second Millennial Lutheran Calvin and Hobbs Mega Church of America (copyright2005)” Then they are giving all the other churches which it derived its name the finger. The CC is in a battle with liberalism, it made the Church look bad in many ways, but it STAYED TOGETHER, and NEVER BACKED DOWN. The CC has been through so much more than any 20th century minimart Prot church that it is hard for anyone to fathom the stuff its had to deal with. *
**
—
So where and who are these people?:
They are pastoring their respective flocks all over the world. If you want to call it the Catholic Church, that’s fine with me. I see the leaders as well. Their respective flocks? You mean that they are divided only by culture and language, not faith and morals I hope? There is one Faith. About calling it the CC you say thats fine with you?..You misunderstand your own position. Name a name of a leader that you see? Who is your leader?

---

We were getting off the original text, so here it is:

Sting:God has made a role for leaders in the church. These people are tasked with the responsibility of teaching and preaching the word of God. We are to obey and submit to their authority. Yet, that authority is tied to responsibiltiy. If they fail in their responsibility to teach and preach the word of God, Christians are not bound to submit to or obey false teachings or false teachers.

Help, Help, Fire, Fire!!! The shepherd has misled us, how do we know what to do when the shepherd fails us?? How do we know what is the truth? We could make ourselves the authority and decide who passes the test? And if we dont find him we will either start our own church or find a pastor who WE BELIEVE, then we will know Gods plan to never be misled because only we can mislead ourselves and that aint going to happen.
Sting, you see where this nonsense is going? Its real, this happens every day.

 

[Stingray]

I was sure there was only supposed to be one flock and one shepherd. What if 2 shepherds violently disagree?

There is one flock and one shepherd. The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ. Each flock is a part of the one flock and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Can you point to any thing in the world with the same level of authority other that the CC?

Not sure what you are asking here.

The Church is not an invisible white castle in the clouds, there is one supreme congregation known as the CC visible to all. This has been passed down through the years. Non Catholic believers dont have the full truth.

**Never said the church is an invisible white castle in the clouds. A supreme congregation, don’t think so. If it was passed on through the years, someone forgot to tell the ECFs. Jesus is the truth. Are you saying that non catholics don’t have Jesus? **

What are you saying? That they are included in all Catholic Bibles and even protestant Bibles up to around 1825, but they were never accepted by the very church that uses them? Who is the authority to decide what is inspired? The Council of Trent was 100% Catholic Church so how are they not binding?. They didnt just wake up one day and say, Father, I had a dream that this book doesnt belong in the Bible. They used those books for years, then, now and forever. The reason why it was made official in the way you see it is because there were “shepherds” that wanted to trash the books, and who for some egotistical reason those “shepherds” thought they had the power to do something like that.

Like I said, you should look into it. The church as a whole never considered the books you have in mind as canonical or inspired. Check it out. The fact that these books were placed alongside the scriptures does not mean they were considered inspired or canonical. In fact, if you would look into it as I have suggested you will find all the evidence says otherwise. You ask who is the authority to decide what is inspired. This question betrays your view. It didn’t work that way. God led his church to recognize His inspired word. The pronouncements of the Council of Trent were a rash reaction to the reformation, a desperate attempt to retain power. In their haste and lust for power they ensured a split within the church that may well last until the Lord returns.

---

You must live in a small town… disagree with eachother and even hate eachother. That is not liberalism. When one church names itself … putting luther above Christ. Christ didnt name his church after a human, especially one who lived 1500 years after the fact. The name of the one true church is The Church becuase there is only one…*sign that says “First United Twice Reformed Second Millennial Lutheran Calvin and Hobbs Mega Church of America (copyright2005)” Then they are giving …the finger. The CC is in a battle with liberalism, it made the Church look bad in many ways, but it STAYED TOGETHER, and NEVER BACKED DOWN. The CC has … more than any 20th century minimart Prot church that it is hard for anyone to fathom the stuff its had to deal with. *

Protestant bad…Catholic good.

*Their respective flocks? You mean that they are divided only by culture and language, not faith and morals I hope? *
There is one Faith. About calling it the CC you say thats fine with you?..You misunderstand your own position. Name a name of a leader that you see? Who is your leader?

The one faith is faith in Jesus. I see pastors all over the place. I don’t need to give you a name. If you want to look them up on the internet or go down to a church in your area and meet them. My leaders are my pastor, my deacon, my bible study group leader and those in charge of various ministries which I work with.

*Sting, you see where this nonsense is going? *
**
Well…

God bless,
**Stingray **

 

[Stingray]

Tim Hayes:

Stingray, please assess the whole situation without the use of scripture,or tradition or anything and apply common sense.

Christ came to save us, the next time he comes it will be to judge us, in other words God has to ensure that someone or an organisation is 100% right in their teaching of christianity. God has to ensure that someone is 100% right in teaching otherwise how can we be judged fairly if God did not see fit to help us. , Anything less than 100% must essentailly mean salvation for all, non christian, pagan etc.

If someone is not 100% right then it is impossible to know whether they are 1% or 50% right.

There is so much difference in teaching accross all groups who call themselves Christian that unless we allow all to be saved, it would actaully be impossible for us to know who is right, unlesssssssssss God ensures that someone or some organisation has it 100% right and has always had it 100% right.

Why must it always have been 100% right, reason is that anything less than 100% right and we would not know when they went wrong, becasue we are no longer able to tell when they went wrong it becomes an impossibility to once again know the truth.

Your choice as to who you place that 100% certainty on to, but be assured , being 100% right in teaching guaranteed by Christ, is the only posibility.

Any other choice is a choice of our pride, not the truth.

In Christ

Tim

Hello Tim

Those are some very interesting points you make there. First, let me ask you why would I want to assess something without taking into consideration what God’s word might have to say about it? His word says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12) And it also says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” (Psalm 119:105) Would you prefer me to be walking in darkness rather than the light? That is essentially what you are telling me when you ask me to leave God’s word out of it. Would you have me to rely on my own way of thinking that seems right to me, but in the end leads to death? That is essentially what you are asking me to do by asking me to leave God’s word out of it.

Furthermore, God does not have to ensure someone is 100% right and I don’t know where you ever got this idea. Is this one of those ideas you can only come to by leaving God’s word out of it? You also suggest that if God doesn’t provide you with this “someone” who is 100% right everyone must be saved. You sure seem to have a lot of requirements for God. Have you personally informed Him of all your qualifications yet? I’m sure he wouldn’t mind you telling Him what He must and must not do according to your logic and “common sense.”

The fact of the matter is that God has provided teachings that are 100% correct. Those teachings are found in His holy word, the scriptures. You say, “but we must interpret them and everyone has their own interpretation.” Well, that’s just a risk we’ll have to take. We make choices every day. Each person will be judged according to their own choices and decisions. You choose to follow men who are supposedly 100% right and I choose to follow God’s word that is 100% right. Each of us will have to stand before God with our own choices. You can be no more surer of your 100% men than I am of my understanding of God’s 100% word. Both are a choice and both will be judged by God.

May the Lord come soon.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stingray:

There is one flock and one shepherd.

OK.

Stingray:

The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” did he mean that Peter would be a shepherd or that Peter would be a sheepfeeder? Wait, before our eyes glaze over and we hurry to the next subtle turn of phrase, let us not overlook that sheep are grazers. So they go around looking for stuff to graze on all day. The flock would follow the lead sheep who presumably knew where all the good grazing was. In a domesticated flock, the lead sheep is the shepherd. So, when Jesus was saying to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he meant for Peter to be the shepherd of His flock.

(Now of course we know that Jesus meant that Peter should guide us (not sheep) to spiritual nourishment (not pastureland). Jesus is speaking figuratively.)

Stingray:

Each flock is a part of the one flock

Now you have more than one flock. You started your line of reasoning with the assertion “There is one flock.” Unless you are suggesting that there is one flock with sub-flocks. Where in the Bible does it say there are sub-flocks?

Stingray:

and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Now you have more than one shepherd. You started your line of reasoning with the assertion that “There is one…shepherd.” Are you now suggesting that there is one shepherd with sub-shepherds? Where in the Bible does it say there are sub-shepherds?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stingray:

There is one flock and one shepherd.

OK.

Stingray:

The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” did he mean that Peter would be a shepherd or that Peter would be a sheepfeeder? Wait, before our eyes glaze over and we hurry to the next subtle turn of phrase, let us not overlook that sheep are grazers. So they go around looking for stuff to graze on all day. The flock would follow the lead sheep who presumably knew where all the good grazing was. In a domesticated flock, the lead sheep is the shepherd. So, when Jesus was saying to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he meant for Peter to be the shepherd of His flock.

(Now of course we know that Jesus meant that Peter should guide us (not sheep) to spiritual nourishment (not pastureland). Jesus is speaking figuratively.)

Stingray:

Each flock is a part of the one flock

Now you have more than one flock. You started your line of reasoning with the assertion “There is one flock.” Unless you are suggesting that there is one flock with sub-flocks. Where in the Bible does it say there are sub-flocks?

Stingray:

and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Now you have more than one shepherd. You started your line of reasoning with the assertion that “There is one…shepherd.” Are you now suggesting that there is one shepherd with sub-shepherds? Where in the Bible does it say there are sub-shepherds?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stingray:

Not sure what you are asking here.

Stingray, in an earlier post you used the term “His Church.”

My understanding of Catholic Dude’s question to you is as follows: Presumably the term “His Church” does not mean (for you) the Catholic Church; it means some sort of invisible theoretical set of which various visible groups of Christians were subsets. What level of leadership was necessary and was exerted to ensure the survival of these groups of Christians? Do you believe that the level of leadership which existed in the Early Church still exists today?

You replied “Sure.” So, according to you, the level of leadership which existed in the Early Church still exists today.

Catholic Dude then replied, “Can you point to any thing in the world with the same level of authority other that the CC?”

So, because you have said that you believe the same level of leadership which existed in the Early Church still exists today, what you are being asked is to name the source of that level of leadership which is exercised today.

(True, Catholic Dude does shift to the term ‘authority.’ However, it is not possible to exercise legitimate leadership without authority, so I don’t think we need quibble over diction in this particular case; particularly since the question of legitimacy has bearing in this discussion.)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Catholic Dude:

The Church is not an invisible white castle in the clouds

Stingray:

Never said the church is an invisible white castle in the clouds.

This part of the discussion was about referring offences to ‘The Church’ for resolution. The difference of opinion was about whether ‘the Church’ meant one visible unified group of Christians or whether ‘the church’ meant one invisible theoretical set which included sub-groups of visible Christians.

Ozzie said “If these men were in the church at Ephesus, then they were to take their complaint to the elders of that church. If in Corinth, then to the elders at Corinth.”

I said "Ah, an equivocation. Note the church at Ephesus. Then the change to that church, attempting to argue for a different church located at Corinth. The church at Ephesus meant that part of the Church located at Ephesus. The church at Corinth meant that part of the Church located at Corinth. They were not different churches. They were the Church, the parts of which were located in different regions.

Stingray, you concurred with Ozzie inasmuch as you said, “To the body of believers to which you belong. I can’t tell you the name, in a particular sense, nor the location unless you provide me with that information.”

So both you and Ozzie use the term ‘church’ in a way which can be pluralized. ‘A church,’ for you, is one of many visible churches all of which comprise visible groups of Christians. ‘The church’, for you, does not refer to one visible group of Christians. It refers to an invisible theoretical set of which the many churches are visible subsets.

What’s the upshot? This: Yes, it is true that you did not say in so many exact words that the church is an invisible white castle in the clouds. However, the upshot of what you did say is equivalent.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Catholic Dude:

there is one supreme congregation known as the CC visible to all.

Stingray:

A supreme congregation, don’t think so.

Please give reasons why you do not think so.
Catholic Dude:

This has been passed down through the years.

Stingray:

If it was passed on through the years, someone forgot to tell the ECFs.

So it seems. Who do you think the someone is who forgot to tell the ECF’s?
Catholic Dude:

Non Catholic believers dont have the full truth.

Stingray:

Jesus is the truth.

Yes.

Stingray:

Are you saying that non catholics don’t have Jesus?

I can’t speak for Catholic Dude. However here is my two cents: Whether or not non-Catholics have Jesus is not the worry here. The worry is that non-Catholics have clipped the wings of their relationship with Jesus by arbitrarily, unilaterally, and errantly qualifying their Christian responses with the term ‘sola.’ Moreover, they have then attempted (futiley) to pretend by means of Once Saved Always Saved that they have not put themselves at risk concerning the loss of Heaven.

Quiz: (Fill in the blank) ?_ came before the Fall.

a) Summer

b) Pride

c) I’m gonna pretend I have no idea what the fear of the loss of Heaven feels like.

Stingray:

The church as a whole never considered the books you have in mind as canonical or inspired. Check it out.

You are making the claim. Therefore it is contingent upon you to make your case. What do you mean by ‘the church as a whole’? Please demonstrate that this ‘church as a whole’ never considered the books in question to be canonical or inspired.

Stingray:

You ask who is the authority to decide what is inspired. This question betrays your view. It didn’t work that way. God led his church to recognize His inspired word.

Breaking news. OK. Who? Where? What? When? and Why? Oh and How? You say it didn’t work that way. How did it work?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stingray:

The pronouncements of the Council of Trent were a rash reaction to the reformation, a desperate attempt to retain power.

What are your reasons for saying that they were rash? By ‘desperate attempt to retain power’ are you suggesting that there was some kind of turf war behind the reforming?

Stingray:

In their haste and lust for power they ensured a split within the church that may well last until the Lord returns.

Whether or not they ensured a split then is arguable. Moreover, that was then, this is now. A split lasts as long as people want it to last. Who is ensuring the split now?