|
|
Post by bloodbought1953 on Aug 27, 2022 20:02:07 GMT -8
American churches are in decline and do not reflect the state of Christianity in the World. The body of Christ is alive and well and continues to grow in numbers every year. The Catholic church numbers 1.36 billion people and also grows in numbers every year at the present time. Let us pray the Lord recieves many from it`s ranks. I don't care enough about this matter to research it, but I would hazard a guess that the Romanist “ church” may indeed be growing, yet at the same time the “Percentage” of people that have had their eyes opened to its Unbiblical and False Teachings has increased at the same time..... |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Aug 27, 2022 20:13:21 GMT -8
American churches are in decline and do not reflect the state of Christianity in the World. The body of Christ is alive and well and continues to grow in numbers every year. The Catholic church numbers 1.36 billion people and also grows in numbers every year at the present time. Let us pray the Lord recieves many from it`s ranks. I don't care enough about this matter to research it, but I would hazard a guess that the Romanist “ church” may indeed be growing, yet at the same time the “Percentage” of people that have had their eyes opened to its Unbiblical and False Teachings has increased at the same time..... I dont think it makes a difference for a church that big. Many will go to meet Jesus having been Catholic. In my opinion the best option is to pray that they prove to be acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 28, 2022 8:30:23 GMT -8
And that's a statement of sheer...ignorance. Again, you don't even really know what Catholicism teaches. And you happen to agree with many doctrines handed down by Reformers, doctrines that you'd never come up with on your own anyway, truth be understood. And the Bereans, diligently studious as they were, and as you are, still would not have understood without Paul's input. And any Catholic who's not Catholic in name only doesn't blindly listen to that church either, but seeks and studies, on their own, and finds themselves agreeing. Many Catholics * DO* Seek and Study.....that’s why People are leaving that Romanists Cult in droves ( and thankfully, many of my friends and relatives) The Catholics have a problem.....There are too many people on television that “ Get it Right” and I can picture a catholic man or woman on their way to their” church” , watching a little TV while they are putting on their shoes and socks, and run across somebody like Charles Stanley That actually teaches from the Bible and it will attract those with “ ears to hear” that can understand the Truth and then it’s just a matter of time before they abandon the Cult That has dedicated its existence “ Adding” to Pauls Gospel Of Grace , thereby putting them in the unenviable position of “ Falling From Grace” and being “ Severed from Christ” and not even understanding what it means.... I've read the bible many times-been in many bible studies as well. I still appreciate Mr Stanley as one of the best evangelsists. And there are many good and devoted Protestant teachers out there. What I came to find out, however, is that, while some are close, none have the full-on truth that Catholicism and the eastern churches teach. For that one must study for themselves, being open to the truth wherever that leads. One finds that the Reformers threw the baby out with the bathwater. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 28, 2022 8:34:09 GMT -8
1) If I've been presumptous I apologize but if you beleive in OSAS, eternal security, faith alone, especially depending on how it's qualified, Sola Scriptura, then you'd be out of sync with basic doctrine on justification of the EO and Catholic, churches, the ancient churches in general, and the early church fathers. Been busy, harvest time now but I'll try to lay out basic Catholic teaching when I can and see how it all flies here. 2) Sorry, I get a bit sensitive, overreactive I'm sure as we often tend to be big targets-not all without reason. But I've come, to my own surprise, to really believe that the Catholic understanding is a superior one-and of greatest benefit to humankind. I was once quite anti-Catholic myself incidentally. 3) I didn't say they didn't understand Paul. They didn't understand Scripture without Paul, without Christ's disciples and the revelation and teachings they possessed. Paul said in Galatians that if one ADDS to the Gospel That He preached—- and catholic doctrine reeks with Gospel Additions —- they would be “ Fallen From Grace”.......Convince me that they are NOT! You can’t.....all that you can REALLY do is pray to God that Falling from Grace is not equal to Damnation....Intelligent men disagree.... I'll try: berean-apologetics.boards.net/thread/69/top-controversial-topics-list?page=15&scrollTo=2391 |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbought1953 on Aug 28, 2022 19:41:15 GMT -8
I'll try: berean-apologetics.boards.net/thread/69/top-controversial-topics-list?page=15&scrollTo=2391Please save me some time—— I have not “ Taken the Sacraments”, I have not partaken Of the Eucharist and I have not taken any form of “ official” Communion in 30+ years......I don’t It plan on it either...( I do it here in my home if anybody “must” know—- And NOT because I believe that it “ qualifies” me for Salvation) ......If I continue to reject taking the Sacraments, am I Damned? Please answer that simple question —— it’s all I need to know.... |
|
|
|
Post by Johann on Aug 28, 2022 23:15:52 GMT -8
In my view there is only one essential topic. That is the gospel of christ. Paul said if anyone teaches a different gospel they are to be accursed (literally damned) Unlike topics like prophecy, speaking n tongues, denominations, end of times etc etc, which are not salvic. If we get the gospel wrong. We are hellbound. Calvinism and Arminianism are other non essential doctrines.. I agree with a poster in another thread. It is good to discuss. But when ones salvation comes into question, on these topics. Then one has crossed the line.. Sadly. That means some things which people love to argue (like baptismal regeneration. Or the OSAS/NOSAS debate, in my view are essential. There is only one gospel. if baptism is required. Then those who are not baptised in order to be saved, cannot be saved because they have failed to receive the one true gospel (the opposite is true if water baptism is not required to be saved) same goes with OSAS/NOSAS.. they both can not be true. And both are based on ones perception of what the gospel is Sadly. In all of my years of hearing this particular debate. I see most who reject OSAS do so because they reject calvinism. And it appears they believe that if they accept it, they would be excepting calvinism, The same goes for NOSAS.. a calvinist leaning person would never accept NOSAS, because they would have to admit they are wrong, and maybe these arminians are correct. Amazingly, I never heard the term OSAS until I joined a christian chat about 8 years ago. I am 57 years old. And have been going to church since I was 5 . Thats also why I try not to argue OSAS or NOSAS.. or denominationalsim, or the like. I want to discuss the word of God. Not what this group or that group thinks anyway.. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 29, 2022 4:59:52 GMT -8
I'll try: berean-apologetics.boards.net/thread/69/top-controversial-topics-list?page=15&scrollTo=2391Please save me some time—— I have not “ Taken the Sacraments”, I have not partaken Of the Eucharist and I have not taken any form of “ official” Communion in 30+ years......I don’t It plan on it either...( I do it here in my home if anybody “must” know—- And NOT because I believe that it “ qualifies” me for Salvation) ......If I continue to reject taking the Sacraments, am I Damned? Please answer that simple question —— it’s all I need to know.... I didn't expect you to read much since you already know all, but very little of that post had to do with sacraments; they were a side note mainly because you or another poster brought them up. The bulk of that post had to do with the history of Christian beliefs on the meaning of sin, which is what you asked about. Sacraments were part of the church from the beginning, which is why every church, in the east and west, with a direct link to the past, has them. The sacrament of baptism is what most churches do whether they call it a “sacrament” or not. From the beginning it was considered necessary for salvation in obedience to Christ’s model and command. Christians never knew any other way. It was also understood that we’re only responsible for doing what we can which means that baptism could be foregone if impossible to experience before death. Either way it's a first public profession of faith and always considered the moment of justifcation for a believer. The Eucharist is also what all Christians did from the beginning as the very heart and center of the church’s regular assembling. It’s all about communion with God, the purpose of the Christian faith. Christ established it; we do it. Most Protestant churches continue it in various forms. Confession/reconciliation is what all Christian churches offered from the beginning, acknowledging that a person may turn away from God and yet may want to repent and return to Him. Sin is serious business. So, yes, you need to be born again, enter and remain in communion with God, and repent and be reconciled if you stray seriously far from Him. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 29, 2022 5:23:27 GMT -8
Short answer to the question of the meaningfulness of sin: Man is obligated to walk in the light, to overcome sin, or he will not inherit eternal life. A believer is empowered to do so now and yet will not achieve absolute sinless perfection in this life. And God doesn't demand it even if perfection WILL ultimately be accomplished in those who remain in Him, at the end of the day. Serious sin as outlined in Scripture will serve to mock God and break your bond with Him and gain you eternal death unless turned from and repented of.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 29, 2022 9:28:15 GMT -8
Short answer to the question of the meaningfulness of sin: Man is obligated to walk in the light, to overcome sin, or he will not inherit eternal life. A believer is empowered to do so now and yet will not achieve absolute sinless perfection in this life. And God doesn't demand it even if perfection WILL ultimately be accomplished in those who remain in Him, at the end of the day. Serious sin as outlined in Scripture will serve to mock God and break your bond with Him and gain you eternal death unless turned from and repented of. James said if we keep the whole law, yet STUMBLE in one point. We are guilty of all There are no differing levels of sin when it comes to eternal life and salvation. The smallest white lie told by accident (stumble) will get you eternal death. Stop excusing your sin. (Which is what we do when we say there are these really evil sins, is that my sins are nto so bad) And come to the true author of salvation.. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 29, 2022 12:44:29 GMT -8
Short answer to the question of the meaningfulness of sin: Man is obligated to walk in the light, to overcome sin, or he will not inherit eternal life. A believer is empowered to do so now and yet will not achieve absolute sinless perfection in this life. And God doesn't demand it even if perfection WILL ultimately be accomplished in those who remain in Him, at the end of the day. Serious sin as outlined in Scripture will serve to mock God and break your bond with Him and gain you eternal death unless turned from and repented of. James said if we keep the whole law, yet STUMBLE in one point. We are guilty of all There are no differing levels of sin when it comes to eternal life and salvation. The smallest white lie told by accident (stumble) will get you eternal death. Stop excusing your sin. (Which is what we do when we say there are these really evil sins, is that my sins are nto so bad) And come to the true author of salvation.. Nonsense. So much for the doctrine of sola scriptura which often leads folks to such nonsense. Anyone who pretends that they're not sinners when they are has already excused their sins-and treated them as meaningless-which God does not do. James was talking about not placing oneself back "under the law", as if getting all scrupulous about the removal of a little piece of flesh, etc, could actually make one holy. In that covenant one must have perfection but it would be to no avail anyway. Paul was not saved as a Pharisee even tho he said he was faultless then in regard to righteousness. The church has long wisely understood that a Christian cannot be engaged in the kinds of sins that lead to death, mentioned in Scripture as keeping us from heaven, causing great harm as they directly oppose and destroy love in us and our world. Does a Christian not possess the ability, by and with the Spirit, to overcome sin and do good now? Would that righteousness still be filthy rags? Does putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in order to gain eternal life need to be perfect? Does the good that we must do in Rom 2:7 in order to gain eternal life need to be done perfectly always in every way? The new covenant is a new way, God's way, under grace where He patiently draws us into increasing justice/righteousness. But we must solidly be on that path, doing things His way. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 29, 2022 13:32:18 GMT -8
James said if we keep the whole law, yet STUMBLE in one point. We are guilty of all There are no differing levels of sin when it comes to eternal life and salvation. The smallest white lie told by accident (stumble) will get you eternal death. Stop excusing your sin. (Which is what we do when we say there are these really evil sins, is that my sins are nto so bad) And come to the true author of salvation.. Nonsense. So much for the doctrine of sola scriptura which often leads folks to such nonsense. Anyone who pretends that they're not sinners when they are has already excused their sins-and treated them as meaningless-which God does not do. James was talking about not placing oneself back "under the law", as if getting all scrupulous about the removal of a little piece of flesh, etc, could actually make one holy. In that covenant one must have perfection but it would be to no avail anyway. Paul was not saved as a Pharisee even tho he said he was faultless then in regard to righteousness. The church has long wisely understood that a Christian cannot be engaged in the kinds of sins that lead to death, mentioned in Scripture as keeping us from heaven, causing great harm as they directly oppose and destroy love in us and our world. Does a Christian not possess the ability, by and with the Spirit, to overcome sin and do good now? Would that righteousness still be filthy rags? Does putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in order to gain eternal life need to be perfect? Does the good that we must do in Rom 2:7 in order to gain eternal life need to be done perfectly always in every way? The new covenant is a new way, God's way, under grace where He patiently draws us into increasing justice/righteousness. But we must solidly be on that path, doing things His way. The penalty of sin is death, Period. Once again, Stop listening to men, and start listening to God. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 29, 2022 13:43:09 GMT -8
Nonsense. So much for the doctrine of sola scriptura which often leads folks to such nonsense. Anyone who pretends that they're not sinners when they are has already excused their sins-and treated them as meaningless-which God does not do. James was talking about not placing oneself back "under the law", as if getting all scrupulous about the removal of a little piece of flesh, etc, could actually make one holy. In that covenant one must have perfection but it would be to no avail anyway. Paul was not saved as a Pharisee even tho he said he was faultless then in regard to righteousness. The church has long wisely understood that a Christian cannot be engaged in the kinds of sins that lead to death, mentioned in Scripture as keeping us from heaven, causing great harm as they directly oppose and destroy love in us and our world. Does a Christian not possess the ability, by and with the Spirit, to overcome sin and do good now? Would that righteousness still be filthy rags? Does putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in order to gain eternal life need to be perfect? Does the good that we must do in Rom 2:7 in order to gain eternal life need to be done perfectly always in every way? The new covenant is a new way, God's way, under grace where He patiently draws us into increasing justice/righteousness. But we must solidly be on that path, doing things His way. The penalty of sin is death, Period. Once again, Stop listening to men, and start listening to God. So are you perfectly sinless? Do you ever commit sin in thought, word, or deed? if so, according to God, the God who can and wants to deliver you from all sin, but especially from grave sin in this life to avert your condemnation, you may be in deep hog mire. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 29, 2022 15:43:52 GMT -8
The penalty of sin is death, Period. Once again, Stop listening to men, and start listening to God. So are you perfectly sinless? Do you ever commit sin in thought, word, or deed? if so, according to God, the God who can and wants to deliver you from all sin, but especially from grave sin in this life to avert your condemnation, you may be in deep hog mire. thats WHY I need grace. I wish you could understand that.. |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbought1953 on Aug 29, 2022 20:33:02 GMT -8
I didn't expect you to read much since you already know all, but very little of that post had to do with sacraments; they were a side note mainly because you or another poster brought them up. The bulk of that post had to do with the history of Christian beliefs on the meaning of sin, which is what you asked about. Sacraments were part of the church from the beginning, which is why every church, in the east and west, with a direct link to the past, has them. The sacrament of baptism is what most churches do whether they call it a “sacrament” or not. From the beginning it was considered necessary for salvation in obedience to Christ’s model and command. Christians never knew any other way. It was also understood that we’re only responsible for doing what we can which means that baptism could be foregone if impossible to experience before death. Either way it's a first public profession of faith and always considered the moment of justifcation for a believer. The Eucharist is also what all Christians did from the beginning as the very heart and center of the church’s regular assembling. It’s all about communion with God, the purpose of the Christian faith. Christ established it; we do it. Most Protestant churches continue it in various forms. Confession/reconciliation is what all Christian churches offered from the beginning, acknowledging that a person may turn away from God and yet may want to repent and return to Him. Sin is serious business. So, yes, you need to be born again, enter and remain in communion with God, and repent and be reconciled if you stray seriously far from Him. Thanks for the insult, but despite what you “think”, I never claim to “know all”..... What I “ DO” know is that the Romanist Church are the “KINGS” when it comes to “ ADDING” to Paul’s Gospel.... Anybody that adheres to their “doctrine” is “Fallen From Grace” and doesn't know what the term means...Read Galatians and then prove me wrong.... you evaded my question.....please answer.....If I never take “Communion” again, am I Damned? |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 29, 2022 21:18:17 GMT -8
I didn't expect you to read much since you already know all, but very little of that post had to do with sacraments; they were a side note mainly because you or another poster brought them up. The bulk of that post had to do with the history of Christian beliefs on the meaning of sin, which is what you asked about. Sacraments were part of the church from the beginning, which is why every church, in the east and west, with a direct link to the past, has them. The sacrament of baptism is what most churches do whether they call it a “sacrament” or not. From the beginning it was considered necessary for salvation in obedience to Christ’s model and command. Christians never knew any other way. It was also understood that we’re only responsible for doing what we can which means that baptism could be foregone if impossible to experience before death. Either way it's a first public profession of faith and always considered the moment of justifcation for a believer. The Eucharist is also what all Christians did from the beginning as the very heart and center of the church’s regular assembling. It’s all about communion with God, the purpose of the Christian faith. Christ established it; we do it. Most Protestant churches continue it in various forms. Confession/reconciliation is what all Christian churches offered from the beginning, acknowledging that a person may turn away from God and yet may want to repent and return to Him. Sin is serious business. So, yes, you need to be born again, enter and remain in communion with God, and repent and be reconciled if you stray seriously far from Him. Thanks for the insult, but despite what you “think”, I never claim to “know all”..... What I “ DO” know is that the Romanist Church are the “KINGS” when it comes to “ ADDING” to Paul’s Gospel.... Anybody that adheres to their “doctrine” is “Fallen From Grace” and doesn't know what the term means...Read Galatians and then prove me wrong.... you evaded my question.....please answer.....If I never take “Communion” again, am I Damned? I didn’t expect you to read much since you know all…Not an insult, just truth. Those who think they can see when they don’t remain blind, refusing to seek truth beyond their presumption. As far as the sacraments are concerned, even though the partaking of the Eucharist was a command of Christ, regularly participated in by believers as the absolute core reason for assembling from the beginning along with reading the Word, the church now recognizes that many novel ideas have entered Christianity in the last 5 centuries, especially, and that what was once heresy or serious error in any case has become tradition for many throughout multiple generations. This means that ignorance and widespread disagreements abound. God does not hold anyone accountable for what they don’t know, or for what they sincerely believe to be true even if it may be false or partially true. If someone like yourself is strongly committed to Him, doing their best with what they know, then He will most certainly honor and be pleased by that faith. |
|
