Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination ?

[smaller]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Jason,

I am not making a theological judgment or comment on Lutherans viz a viz any other Christian organization. It is made in context to smaller's comment on his Grandchildren being upset by what a Catholic said about Lutherans frying in hell - a stupid comment, as i have said.

Regards

Oh please. My kids were upset because Grandma and Grandpa were supposedly going to burn in hell because they weren't RCC members.

Believers condemn other believers to burn alive in hell every day.

I certainly agree it's stupid, but the practice is certainly COMMON and ACCEPTED in many sects including yours.

There is nothing in your sect that prohibits a holder from holding that position.

The current Pope has outright stated as much over OMISSION by believers in not taking an active role in the prevention of abortion for example, and threatened same with ETERNITY IN HELL for that SIN. I'm quite surprised he's getting by with those statements quite frankly. He could at least have been politically correct and said 'MIGHT' and 'MAY' wind up in hell rather than 'SHALL' and 'WILL.'

SIN OF OMISSION
"The sin of omission shall condemn many to hell, be they layman or Hierarchy. I repeat: not the sin of commission, but the sin of omission will commit many to hell.-"

"May" be suffering from a lack of doctrinally accurate speech writers?

s

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

And you also know that it is allowed to hold those types of positions, even if they cannot be specifically confirmed or applied. No sense fibbing about it.

I am not sure what "it" means and what that pronoun refers to in my post, so I'll leave it without comment.

As stated prior, if your doctrine causes you internally to believe Lutherans are going to fry like weiners rather than love your neighbors as yourself, my observation is that such are far far far worse off, even while thinking they are not and immune from that which they vaunt on other believers.

I have no doubt that such people who think such things about Lutherans for merely being Lutherans will be righteously judged by God. I think it is fair to say that many Christians, no matter the "persuasion", have such thoughts towards Catholics, JV's, Mormons, Muslims, Agnostics, etc etc... They, too, will be judged by the Lord.

It becomes another matter altogether when you use the word "doctrine", though, and apply it broad-brushed to a billion people without any evidence but heresay from one guy being cruel to little kids...

So there ya go. Your version of worse off and mine obviously again vary depending on our subjective reflections. I don't want your reflection quite frankly because I don't think it's true.

My "version" is a citation of Sacred Scriptures. There is nothing to "subjectively reflect" upon. It is common sense and QUITE literal. It has been literally read back to you. If you think otherwise, read the plain English of 2 Peter 2:20-21 again. Right now, you are just simply denying the passage by not even commenting on it...

I reject such notions as quite short of the mark. I've said before that I agree with the church fathers deliberations on the Trinity but when it comes to one group condemning another over such variances

Timeout, smaller... You are way off base.

You are again confused, based upon your losing your head when your Grandkids complained that some buffoon Catholic said something stupid... Surely, you could have come up with something better at the time then "well, the RCC is clearly lost and so don't pay attention to ANYTHING a Catholic says" based upon one moron's ridiculous statement. THAT is why you have a grudge towards the Catholic Church? Because of one guy???

It is clear that the Catholic Church does not condemn Lutherans. The Catholic Church has sat down with Lutherans and worked out discussions on Justification by Faith, for example. Just because one clown makes such a juvenile statement to kids doesn't make it part of our doctrine! :o.

Now, if you could point out to me from the Catechism, or some other official teaching, you might have something. What is sad is that it appears you came to your "grudging" position without any such research at all - presuming that one guy making a statement was akin to the Pope making an ex cathedra statement...

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

lutherans and catholics reconciling the schizm? do send me that. is that in regard to solo fide?

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Oh please. My kids were upset because Grandma and Grandpa were supposedly going to burn in hell because they weren't RCC members.

And clearly, you couldn't make an evangelizing statement that some Christians are simply not following their walk in Christ very well? This has nothing to do with "RCC". I have heard Baptists say this about Catholics... You couldn't do a slight amount of reading and explain - "no, little Johnie, that Catholic was mistaken, he doesn't know what his church actually teaches. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who have very little knowledge of what their own church teaches"?

Do you think your Grandchildren learned a valuable lesson on love by hearing their Grandparents respond to an entire group of Christians based upon ONE person???

I am sorry if I appear harsh. But I have heard ten times worse IN PRINT from non-Catholic Christians...

Believers condemn other believers to burn alive in hell every day.

That is a shame. It is wrong.

I certainly agree it's stupid, but the practice is certainly COMMON and ACCEPTED in many sects including yours.

I certainly did not deny that. You will find that I do not whitewash the Church. The only reason I remain Catholic is because I trust the Holy Spirit, not the skills and abilities of Catholics...

There is nothing in your sect that prohibits a holder from holding that position.

Sure there is. Unlike most non-Catholic Christians, the Catholic Church's clergy must answer to someone else higher up the chain. To publically makes such a statement would be "organizational suicide", if you catch my drift. Morally, it is unfitting to make such a statement.

The current Pope has outright stated as much over OMISSION by believers in not taking an active role in the prevention of abortion for example, and threatened same with ETERNITY IN HELL for that SIN.

I think you might be mistaken on this. And taken out of context, no doubt.

SIN OF OMISSION
"The sin of omission shall condemn many to hell, be they layman or Hierarchy. I repeat: not the sin of commission, but the sin of omission will commit many to hell.-"

Sure. those who refuse to repent SHALL, just as Matthew 25 states several examples of the "sin of omission" condemning people to hell. Again, it is straight from Scritpures. However, you are forgetting something very important. ALL sin is forgiveable by our Lord Jesus Christ, to include sins of omission. A person can repent of omitting to do something that they felt they should have done. Obviously, a person will not be condemned to eternal punishment if God has forgiven them.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

[/B]

And clearly, you couldn't make an evangelizing statement that some Christians are simply not following their walk in Christ very well? This has nothing to do with "RCC". I have heard Baptists say this about Catholics... You couldn't do a slight amount of reading and explain - "no, little Johnie, that Catholic was mistaken, he doesn't know what his church actually teaches. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who have very little knowledge of what their own church teaches"?

I'll make this statement again and you can agree or disagree.

The sect in question, the RCC, ALLOWS that belief to be openly held by their adherents, and even ALLOWS that belief to be promoted by adherents.

Yeah or Nay?

Do you think your Grandchildren learned a valuable lesson on love by hearing their Grandparents respond to an entire group of Christians based upon ONE person???

Their Grandparents were well aware of the practice. It's one of the reasons they eventually left the Lutheran church, because they did the same things.

My parents always taught me that the only thing that was important about Christianity was to love your neighbors as yourself, and do unto others as you would have done unto you. I consider that to have been very GODLY advice and it has stuck with me because it's sound and solid scripturally and good for life.

I am sorry if I appear harsh. But I have heard ten times worse IN PRINT from non-Catholic Christians...

Y'all play the same game in my observation.

I certainly did not deny that. You will find that I do not whitewash the Church. The only reason I remain Catholic is because I trust the Holy Spirit, not the skills and abilities of Catholics...

It's in my nature to vigorously question what I hold and why. In fact I sometimes don't even know why I bother with it, but that's just the way it is for me. Can't help it. In order to prove any position it DESERVES the harshest of tests. I try not to offend anyone 'personally' and hope you understand I am observing positions, not the people who hold same.

Sure there is. Unlike most non-Catholic Christians, the Catholic Church's clergy must answer to someone else higher up the chain. To publically makes such a statement would be "organizational suicide", if you catch my drift. Morally, it is unfitting to make such a statement.

Most organizations are like any group. There are an abundance of views if one digs below the surface just a tad. Some are hardliners, some are liberals. It's really more political than religious in the end, imho.

Sure. those who refuse to repent SHALL, just as Matthew 25 states several examples of the "sin of omission" condemning people to hell. Again, it is straight from Scritpures. However, you are forgetting something very important. ALL sin is forgiveable by our Lord Jesus Christ, to include sins of omission. A person can repent of omitting to do something that they felt they should have done. Obviously, a person will not be condemned to eternal punishment if God has forgiven them.

Regards

Again, in my opinion his use of 'shall' and 'will' are not confirmed by the Church and 'some' even within your sect would oppose such statements using hardline terms BECAUSE of the 'rich history' of your sect NOT going quite that far. They have carried people to the threshold of hell, but NEVER assuredly tossed anyone flat out 'shall' and 'will' be therein. To me that is a fairly large departure from the norm, but also violated by other Popes as well. And then there are those real hardliners who broke off from the RCC for the sect being too slack after V2. Again, there is a diversity of 'opinion' and all of these really are individual reflections of what is in us in the end. It's unavoidable that there will be such diversities. I may object to some reflections, but then again they are not my reflections. Everyone has to be convinced in their own minds. If not, then it's a sin to them.

I do drawn the line though when they ascend the eternal damnation throne. That right doesn't exist in the text, particularly when hooked to doctrinal positions. It may be a good business enterprise to divide, conquer and collect, but I don't consider that anyone with evil in heart (read ALL) is equipped to make determinations. Sinners condemning other sinners remains a joke to me.

In my world a believer who condemns other believers to burn alive forever over doctrinal differences is worse than a murderer. But they have my sympathy as well. It's a pretty heady seat for those who think they are sitting there, megalomania of the worst degree. That is really what is being shown in those who do that. A little tyrant therein seeking to intimidate others. It's quite despicable and disturbing. But ya know ya thrown on some long white and purple robes or a new black suit and put them in a big Cathedral or on TV with a microphone in their mouths and somehow everything they say becomes legit to many.

go figure.

enjoy!

s

 

[WIP]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Friendly warning:
Maybe we should take a breath of fresh air, step back a bit, and get back on topic rather than continuing the denominational debate.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

And some believers err so badly as to return to the life of sin - making them worse off then BEFORE being saved. Clearly, they are no longer saved, to be "worse off"...

THINK ABOUT IT! WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE!!!

The OSAS crowd has no response to 2 Peter 2:20-21. It is as simple as that.

Regards

There certainly is a response, although I've no doubt you won't accept it.

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Peter is speaking of these false prophets, although the holy commandment had been delivered to them, they never heeded it. In the same way the demon was cast out, but returned to find the house swept and garnished but EMPTY. More demons moved in because the house was still empty of the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 2:1-2 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

When Peter refers to the Proverb about a dog returning to it's own vomit, it clearly shows despite all their denials their nature remains unchanged. They were never born again believers to begin with. Clearly the churches are filled with those who know a lot about Scripture but have not been given a new heart. They are still pigs returning to the mire, and dogs to the vomit...they are carnal still.

We see the same with the children of Israel. They knew God and all He'd done for them, but they were not allowed to enter into the promised land because of unbelief. They had no faith,,,, denying the Lord who bought them, just as these false teachers do. A man may "thinketh" he stands when he doesn't.

1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

More text twisting so as to remove the meaning of Sacred Writ.

Did Jesus say something so different in Matthew's Gospel:

You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. Matt 5:21-24

Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

It is perfectly clear that James is refering to Jesus' saying. Jesus is making a "lesser to greater" argument - HIS Law has a higher requirement than the Mosaic Law.

The key word here is not "grudge", but BE CONDEMNED. And this condemnation is serious, for "the judge standeth before the door". Clearly, the "Judge" is Jesus Christ, Who has made it clear that our actions with our brother can place us in danger of hell-fire.

Regards

Are you saying it's "text twisting" to put forward the Greek meaning of a word? The fact remains, the Greek word for grudge means to sigh. If you insist that's grounds for great condemnation, that's your choice. In context...

James knew the destruction of Israel was just around the corner, He's speaking of having PATIENCE for the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh." That's the Judge standing at the door...the city was on the brink of destruction. This is why it's so important not to take scripture out of context to prove some point. Make your point with Matt. if you wish, but don't make it with a verse that does not prove what you're claiming. We aren't "condemned" for "SIGHING".

Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

That is debatable. It is also inconsequential, since there are very few specific believers who are absolutely guarnateed salvation to eternal life, either... EVERYTIME you see "persevere", it presumes that no one is indeed guaranteed anything - unless they REMAIN in Christ.

It isn't that we are able, but that He is ABLE.

Hebrews 13:5 - "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

John 10:27-30 - "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."

Hebrews 7:25 - "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

I'll make this statement again and you can agree or disagree.

The sect in question, the RCC, ALLOWS that belief to be openly held by their adherents, and even ALLOWS that belief to be promoted by adherents.

Yeah or Nay?

I am not aware of a positive statement that openly allows such an idea. Ney.

Their Grandparents were well aware of the practice. It's one of the reasons they eventually left the Lutheran church, because they did the same things.

"they" as in every Lutheran who had such a mistaken opinion, or "they" as in an official stance?

My parents always taught me that the only thing that was important about Christianity was to love your neighbors as yourself, and do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Well and good, but Christianity is much more than that... Hindus and Buddhists would not disagree with the above statement as "important"... Quite honestly, I think Atheists would even make similar secular statements. These are NOT distinguishing features of Christianity...

Most organizations are like any group. There are an abundance of views if one digs below the surface just a tad. Some are hardliners, some are liberals. It's really more political than religious in the end, imho.

Of course. And that should give you consolation that an opinion by one person does not necessarily speak for the entire organization...

Again, in my opinion his use of 'shall' and 'will' are not confirmed by the Church and 'some' even within your sect would oppose such statements using hardline terms BECAUSE of the 'rich history' of your sect NOT going quite that far. They have carried people to the threshold of hell, but NEVER assuredly tossed anyone flat out 'shall' and 'will' be therein. To me that is a fairly large departure from the norm, but also violated by other Popes as well. And then there are those real hardliners who broke off from the RCC for the sect being too slack after V2. Again, there is a diversity of 'opinion' and all of these really are individual reflections of what is in us in the end. It's unavoidable that there will be such diversities. I may object to some reflections, but then again they are not my reflections. Everyone has to be convinced in their own minds. If not, then it's a sin to them.

OK. Again, one would expect there would be a diversity of opinions within a norm of acceptance, given that a particular Church is "catholic" or "universal", one that spans a variety of cultures.

I do drawn the line though when they ascend the eternal damnation throne.

I am not sure what you mean here.

If you are stating that one makes a generic statement that some will go to hell is "ascending the damnation throne", you are going to have to return to Scriptures, since Jesus is pretty blunt about this, over and over again. If you are stating that one Christian should not "condemn" another specific Christian, I would agree - with the caveat that we are COMMANDED by Christ and other writers in Scriptures that we are to call Christians to task for not living the life that Christ intends. Sometimes, that "calling to task" can appear harsh, esp. in this day of "live and let live" and one of the few absolutes left in society - relativism.

I presume you would understand the difference between calling someone to task and condemning them to hell - but the lines can become blurry...

That right doesn't exist in the text, particularly when hooked to doctrinal positions. It may be a good business enterprise to divide, conquer and collect, but I don't consider that anyone with evil in heart (read ALL) is equipped to make determinations. Sinners condemning other sinners remains a joke to me.

I supppose all of those times Paul was calling to task "immature Christians" was quite humorous reading for you...

Or maybe the words of Jesus Christ are funny?

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matt 18:15-17

I guess I am not getting the joke here... But doesn't it state that we are to point out others faults - and if they refuse to hear us or the Church, to cast them out from us???

Scriptures say what they say. I realize that many Christians have reverted to a "personal" idea of a relationship with Jesus, but that is simply not all that the Bible says on the subject. The very IDEA of Paul and James writing AT ALL was to call Christians to task for not living up to their heritage. I presume you have read 1 Corinthians, James or Galatians...

In my world a believer who condemns other believers to burn alive forever over doctrinal differences is worse than a murderer. But they have my sympathy as well. It's a pretty heady seat for those who think they are sitting there, megalomania of the worst degree. That is really what is being shown in those who do that. A little tyrant therein seeking to intimidate others. It's quite despicable and disturbing. But ya know ya thrown on some long white and purple robes or a new black suit and put them in a big Cathedral or on TV with a microphone in their mouths and somehow everything they say becomes legit to many.

The same can be said for people who come here and seem to think that every thought emerging from their mind is inspired by God. Such think that because they have separated themselves from "the Church", that now, they can live in harmony with Jesus while avoiding the "messiness" of "Church"...

Go figure. I don't get that from reading the Gospels.

We live in the world. There will be no utopia until we achieve heaven.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Peter is speaking of these false prophets, although the holy commandment had been delivered to them, they never heeded it.

Yet AGAIN, you interject into Sacred Scriptures what is NOT there!!!

Where does Peter say "they never heeded it"? Quite the OPPOSITE! Read it again, glorydaz. It states that they DID obey and escape the corruptions of the world.

In the same way the demon was cast out, but returned to find the house swept and garnished but EMPTY. More demons moved in because the house was still empty of the Holy Spirit.

Incorrect. When the Lord "clears demons out of the house", it does not remain empty. Either we are slaves to God or slaves to sin. When satan is removed, the Spirit of God comes. You are making the statement above because you presume that the Spirit of God will never leave someone, when the Bible gives us examples of such conditions where the Spirit is grieved and will leave.

2 Peter 2:1-2 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

When Peter refers to the Proverb about a dog returning to it's own vomit, it clearly shows despite all their denials their nature remains unchanged.

Wrong. Peter states that they return to a life ONE LIVED. This tells us that they HAD changed. You don't "return" to something unless you LEFT it!

The text says what it says.

They were never born again believers to begin with.

More proof that you haven't really contemplated the text. It states that they ESCAPED CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD. Please tell me, how ELSE are we saved from corruption than by Jesus Christ's presence in us??? Doesn't Peter HIMSELF make this statement in Acts? No one is saved except through Jesus Christ. Thus, if someone had escaped the corruption of the world - sin - they did so because they WERE - IN THE PAST - a "born again believer.

They fell away. They RETURNED to a life of sin. We all know of such Christians who returned to a life of sin, a life worse off than before. Your point, as I have labored to point out, makes no sense and actually VOIDS the idea that we even KNOW we are saved to begin with!!!


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Are you saying it's "text twisting" to put forward the Greek meaning of a word? The fact remains, the Greek word for grudge means to sigh. If you insist that's grounds for great condemnation, that's your choice. In context...

The Greek word "stenazō" means more than to just "sigh", as in prayer!!!

It means to "murmur", specifically as noted in Thayer's in reference to James 5:9.

In context, it clearly is synonymous with Lev 19:18, which explains what "grudge" means...

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

The context of James 5 is in reference to behaviour towards other Christians, not about "sighing during prayers"!!!

So yes, you are again text-twisting...

This is why it's so important not to take scripture out of context to prove some point. Make your point with Matt. if you wish, but don't make it with a verse that does not prove what you're claiming. We aren't "condemned" for "SIGHING".

I never stated that, since I didn't say we are condemned for "sighing" :eeeekkk. We are under condemnation for grudging - which my reference to Matthew 5 should make CRYSTAL CLEAR...

YOU are taking the wrong meaning of the word used by James... The reference to the "judge" soon to appear places the context within the typical meaning of "to hold a grudge", not about sighing during prayer!!!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

It isn't that we are able, but that He is ABLE.

Hebrews 13:5 - "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

John 10:27-30 - "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."

Hebrews 7:25 - "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

No one is denying what is POSSIBLE for God. It doesn't follow, however, that God WILL do as you state...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

lutherans and catholics reconciling the schizm? do send me that. is that in regard to solo fide?

Sorry if I implied that. SOME Lutherans (I don't think the Missouri Synod) have been talking with Catholics on the subject of justification by faith. Very little has been "solved", but there is a greater understanding. It seems that some of the issue is over definitions. But no, the schism has not been "reconciled". The Church still condemns the idea of "sola fide" as intended by the classical reformers, although SOME non-Catholics have further developed the definition to mean something more in line to what Catholics believe.

Sola fide can mean a number of things - and in one sense, if we twist the definition, Catholics could say "sola fide". But to do so, we would have to include love, hope, repentance, etc., into what "fide" means. So it really isn't "sola" anymore...

My reasoning for mentioning this is that Catholics are not condemning Lutherans for being Lutherans - since we are in discussion with our separated brothers in a loving and respectful manner from both sides.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

[/COLOR][/B]
I am not aware of a positive statement that openly allows such an idea. Ney.

Oh well. If we don't look it's not there.

"they" as in every Lutheran who had such a mistaken opinion, or "they" as in an official stance?

My factual observation is that buried beneath every sects organization are the tools to condemn other believers to hell. That's why there are such sects. They divide exactly along this one line, hell to other believers, primarily over doctrinal issues.

I understand how they get there and why they do it. Nothing unusual.

Well and good, but Christianity is much more than that... Hindus and Buddhists would not disagree with the above statement as "important"... Quite honestly, I think Atheists would even make similar secular statements. These are NOT distinguishing features of Christianity...

Well, again, depends on what ones heart desires to focus on. I'd find that thee primary focus and you say nay. See what you want to see. What is in every heart is revealed in that process.

Of course. And that should give you consolation that an opinion by one person does not necessarily speak for the entire organization...

What we are speaking of exists in every christian sect, period. We all divide over HELL. Jesus was pretty much accurate in observing these matters:

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

If one observes these matters they are abundantly open and viewable. But of course if one does not look starting within, one might very well be 'whom' Jesus is speaking of.

OK. Again, one would expect there would be a diversity of opinions within a norm of acceptance, given that a particular Church is "catholic" or "universal", one that spans a variety of cultures.

Yes, divisions are 'normal.'

I am not sure what you mean here.

If you are stating that one makes a generic statement that some will go to hell is "ascending the damnation throne", you are going to have to return to Scriptures, since Jesus is pretty blunt about this, over and over again.

Not at all. What I am referring to is the feeling of POWER and AUTHORITY that the darkness in mens hearts is DRAWN TO when ascending into that throne and vaunting that over others. The exact TOOL that is used by such is the HELL STICK. That is the presumed SCEPTER OF POWER that holders believe is in their hand or the hand of their sect. The ability to define and to make such determinations. I believe it to be a trap. It's a form of internal megalomania that comes upon everyone who picks it up and the essence of hypocrisy is formed within.

Again, the working is apparent and decried by Jesus. The "I am justified" and "you are not." Even though both handlers are SINNERS, they both deem himself justified over their correct doctrine and condemn the other.

The O.T. spoke to this exact matter as well, where everyones hand is turned against the other. That is factually what goes on within Christiandom behind the pomp and circumstance.

And the dividing is planned and spoken of by God. God intentionally keeps the evil in mens hearts divided just as it started at the tower of Babel. It will never coalesce nor will God allow it to. To me it's one of the greatest proofs of the legitimacy of Christianity, long ago spoken by the Prophets.

If you are stating that one Christian should not "condemn" another specific Christian, I would agree - with the caveat that we are COMMANDED by Christ and other writers in Scriptures that we are to call Christians to task for not living the life that Christ intends.

But you see carrying the eternal condemnation to have another believer burned alive forever is probably a far greater sin internally in the carrier than in the supposed astray believer. Think about it and get back to me.

Sometimes, that "calling to task" can appear harsh, esp. in this day of "live and let live" and one of the few absolutes left in society - relativism.

I will maintain that such carriers are trapped in megalomania themselves and are also in fact mini power mongers seeking to vaunt their understandings over another believer. If they were honest they would say, hey we're BOTH sinners, let's not have the devil rule our hearts while we are hear as this is pleasing to God.

No, instead they observe EXTERNAL sin of the other and IGNORE the darkeness within themselves in trying to burn another believer alive forever.

Who is the real sinner in that equation? To me it is the believer seeking to burn another believer alive forever. There is no greater sin than to seek that. To me it is murder in their hearts. Masquerading hypocrisy. Some will even go so far as to paint that as love.

When you find an example in the text where a BELIEVER is treated that way, let me know. I have found NO SUCH examples, period, of 'straighten up brother or God is going to burn you alive forever.'

Yet this tool today is used to gather up proselytes continually from group to group. It's no longer a matter of correction, it's a matter of 'come and join my sect' and then and only then can YOU avoid that fate.

It's a BUSINESS PLAN!

I presume you would understand the difference between calling someone to task and condemning them to hell - but the lines can become blurry...

uh, yeah, hello.

I supppose all of those times Paul was calling to task "immature Christians" was quite humorous reading for you...

I take the matters of being a slave of hatred very seriously or I wouldn't be speaking with you or any. But I understand that the first fallen 'in this present life' are going to be BELIEVERS. The evidence is obvious.

Or maybe the words of Jesus Christ are funny?

Uh, no, I do take demonic possession matters very seriously. When I talk to another believer and I encounter that dark working in them that seeks to burn other believers alive in fire, I know I am in actuality talking to a DEVIL. The slave has my sympathy but the adversary is very strong in them.

There is only one way to know the difference. Those who love their neighbors as themselves are the Christians. Those who do not are in fact the slaves of darkness no matter what their 'covering is' on the outside.

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matt 18:15-17

Well, I guess that gives you a sure license to condemn believers to burn alive forever eh?

I guess I am not getting the joke here...

I guess I'm not prone to strawman positioning either. Perhaps you forgot this?

Gal. 6:
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.


There are many directions this conversation can take at this point. But one fact will remain, that there is NOT ONE BELIEVER shown as being threatened with being burned alive forever. Not a one example.


Yet this stick is used continually by every religious megalomaniac who is tempted to SIT IN THAT CHAIR.


Such have forgotten their own condition and the LOVE that God in Christ has given us exactly because of the fact.

But doesn't it state that we are to point out others faults - and if they refuse to hear us or the Church, to cast them out from us???

Paul's advice is pretty clear to such:

2 Cor.
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

Can you see that yet? Can you see the tool that is EXCLUDED. Destruction! When YOU ARE PERFECT (obedience is complete) you can 'correct disobedience.' I think Paul is very specifically EXCLUDING 'eternal' destruction as one of those tools.

I will not discount the destruction of the flesh (present life) as being a legit tool however.

Scriptures say what they say. I realize that many Christians have reverted to a "personal" idea of a relationship with Jesus, but that is simply not all that the Bible says on the subject.

Well, you can think you are serious about that statement. I will roll my eyes on that one. I might agree that people who hear little voices in their heads thinking it's Jesus are perhaps a tad bit more than deluded, but I can't fault them for being reached by God in Christ 'personally.'

People DO have experiences with God in Christ in a PERSONAL way. God reaches His Own Sheep Himself.

The very IDEA of Paul and James writing AT ALL was to call Christians to task for not living up to their heritage. I presume you have read 1 Corinthians, James or Galatians...

Please do not make any appeals to me based on the sum and total history of the RCC or any of the 'other' orthodox churches. I don't even want to go there. Bottom line is that this whole idea of having the correct doctrine and either outright casting the others into hell or calling other believers heretics and carrying them to the threshold of hell started with THEM and has been going on busily ever since. Not playing. Sorry.

The same can be said for people who come here and seem to think that every thought emerging from their mind is inspired by God. Such think that because they have separated themselves from "the Church", that now, they can live in harmony with Jesus while avoiding the "messiness" of "Church"...

If you feel the need for a doctrinal set to be hung over your head with the threat of non-compliance being burned alive forever and the subsequent need to take that to other believers, SO BE IT.

I will not bow to such activity, period AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE.

Go figure. I don't get that from reading the Gospels.

I am for any person who loves their neighbors as themselves. The other are wolves in sheep cloth and captives of the devil in their hearts. Such seek to devour other believers and burn them alive. Their lack of fruit speaks for itself.

We live in the world. There will be no utopia until we achieve heaven.

Regards

There is no personal perfection in this present life that gives any believer the handle on burning other believers alive in fire.

Such are fallen in this present life. Their actions speak for themselves.

I do NOT condemn ANY such to that fate. Y'all who want to play that game can be led where you are led. I see what the reflection is and it's one I do not care to have.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Oh well. If we don't look it's not there.

What exactly are you trying to accuse me of now?

My factual observation is that buried beneath every sects organization are the tools to condemn other believers to hell.

I don't think ANY "sect" teaches that one believer condemns another to hell. You are confusing:

discerning an action as one that would lead to hell
WITH actually making a judgment binding upon the believer.

No one is taking the place of God. They merely are saying that "in your present state of being (say, mortal sin), you are in danger of hellfire". I have already presented Scriptures that has JESUS HIMSELF making such statements... To the Catholic who made the statement to the Grandkids, HE HIMSELF was not condemning all Lutherans, but expressing his belief that maintaining a "heretical position", in his mind, would inevitably lead to the judgment of hell by God.

While poorly done in this case, God does expect us to call other Christians to task if they fail, for the purpose of bringing them to repentance.

That's why there are such sects. They divide exactly along this one line, hell to other believers, primarily over doctrinal issues.

Hardly WHY there are sects... People disagree with interpretation of Scriptures or over valid authority, not over deciding who "they" are sending to hell! In my discussions on this forum, RARELY does it come up that our differences revolve around "who I think should go to hell" vs "who you think should go to hell".

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

If one observes these matters they are abundantly open and viewable. But of course if one does not look starting within, one might very well be 'whom' Jesus is speaking of.

True. That is why it is important to approach another Christian to chastise them from a relatively pure motive and heart, for it can easily be a moment of pride and hypocrisy. Such things must be done carefully, in love.

What I am referring to is the feeling of POWER and AUTHORITY that the darkness in mens hearts is DRAWN TO when ascending into that throne and vaunting that over others...

OK. And I understand your point. But this is not really a "denominational issue", but one of men in general, who have a propensity towards pride and hypocrisy. I don't see this "built in" to any sect's doctrinal statements, but rather, men themselves who are not as ecumenical as we would like to see.

One must also balance the zeal that goes along with discussing such issues and in thinking one is correct and serving God's Will. The Pharisees also were zealous and thought that they were serving God's Will. But that is not a function of Judaism, per sec, but men attempting to respond to someone who disagrees with what they think is the correct interpretation of God's Will found in Scriptures.

I will maintain that such carriers are trapped in megalomania themselves and are also in fact mini power mongers seeking to vaunt their understandings over another believer. If they were honest they would say, hey we're BOTH sinners, let's not have the devil rule our hearts while we are hear as this is pleasing to God.

Perhaps. This is why Paul CAN make such statements to other Christians, calling them infants and immature or James can call some "foolish". One doesn't need to be sinless, but one must present themselves as actually living the life of Christ within themselves. Yes, we are sinners, and the humble realize this. But that does NOT prevent (or absolve you of your responsibility of) the following of Jesus' mandate in Matthew 18.

The "authority" of such chastising will be based upon whether that person is considered 'righteous', as the Psalm states. We naturally would reject chastisement from someone who we knew was evil - and gladly accept it from someone we consider saintly.

Well, maybe not gladly, but we would recognize the authority...

No, instead they observe EXTERNAL sin of the other and IGNORE the darkeness within themselves in trying to burn another believer alive forever.

You are now judging others by your statement of "ignoring the darkness within themselves". It SOUNDS like you are saying that NO ONE has the right to chastise another Christian - and if they did, they must be evil. The fallacy of over-generalization...

Who is the real sinner in that equation? To me it is the believer seeking to burn another believer alive forever.

Who is seeking to burn another believer? It is merely a statement of the current path, in that person's mind.

Some people think I am bound to hell because I am Catholic. It doesn't mean that they SEEK for me to burn. Quite the opposite - they want to "convert" me to their line of thinking. They believe that my "mistakes" are leading me to hell. Honestly, their zeal is commendable. Naturally, I think their presentation of the Gospel is in error. God will judge my actual end.

When you find an example in the text where a BELIEVER is treated that way, let me know. I have found NO SUCH examples, period, of 'straighten up brother or God is going to burn you alive forever.'

I already gave you an example from Matthew 5... Jesus utilizes many such examples of "you better straighten out or else" in His teachings...

How many more do you want me to post so that you can ignore them???

I take the matters of being a slave of hatred very seriously or I wouldn't be speaking with you or any. But I understand that the first fallen 'in this present life' are going to be BELIEVERS. The evidence is obvious.

You told me such things were humorous... Now, they are "very serious"? Forgive me please, I am confused.

There is only one way to know the difference. Those who love their neighbors as themselves are the Christians.

Where does the bible make this statement???

Furthermore, you are suggesting that only PERFECT lovers of neighbors are actually Christians. One must be "perfect", for there are times that one does NOT love their neighbor as themselves. Does that disqualify them immediately? The Christian (and God, thankfully) is more forgiving than you appear to express.

This is the ever-present problem with the self-righteous...

Those who do not are in fact the slaves of darkness no matter what their 'covering is' on the outside.
Well, I guess that gives you a sure license to condemn believers to burn alive forever eh?

I guess that puts me in the company Jesus, Who made that statement...

I guess I'm not prone to strawman positioning either. Perhaps you forgot this?

Gal. 6:
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

Yes, men deceive themselves quite often. I often try to read my own signature line, but sometimes, I don't. but this does not excuse a Christian from bringing a fallen Christian back to the faith, if it means that one must poke and prod and bring up uncomfortable subjects. Doesn't James say that rescuing such a person covers many sins??? Doesn't it follow that 'rescuing' someone who had fallen away was on the path to perdition - that they need to be rescued in the first place???

There are many directions this conversation can take at this point. But one fact will remain, that there is NOT ONE BELIEVER shown as being threatened with being burned alive forever. Not a one example.

Logical fallacy again, the faulty definition. Let's look at one example to better explain this...

Believers are generally threatened with being "cast out into the night" if they fail to persevere, for example. Are you stating that this does not refer to hell, but a literal being put outside the house to spend the night with the pet dog??? So when Jesus tells His parable about the "Wedding Feast" - universally seen as the scene in heaven - and someone is cast out for not wearing a Wedding garment, is Jesus now suddenly reverting to sleeping outside with Rover???

The punishment of hell is described in Scriptures in many ways. It is NOT ALWAYS called "being burned alive like a weenie". It can be called "cast into the pit". "Cast out into the night". Basically, separated from the righteous and God is considered "hell".

Thus, it is faulty logic to present me your false definition and conclude : "ah, see, no one is believer is being condemned to burn forever". It is a red herring. Hell is described also as being "cast out into the night".

Paul's advice is pretty clear to such:

2 Cor.
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

Can you see that yet? Can you see the tool that is EXCLUDED. Destruction!

It is my contention - and the point of my postings - that people are not INTENDING to destroy anyone. While not politically correct to the ultra-sensitive, such statements are MEANT to bring a conversion, not to announce one's inevitable and unchangeable destiny, as if THEY controlled God's judgment...

I will not discount the destruction of the flesh (present life) as being a legit tool however.

And if the wicked one fails to repent? I suppose, in your mind, it would be better to lie to them and tell them "no worries, be happy"!!!

whoopie!!! No fried weeners!

Well, you can think you are serious about that statement. I will roll my eyes on that one. I might agree that people who hear little voices in their heads thinking it's Jesus are perhaps a tad bit more than deluded, but I can't fault them for being reached by God in Christ 'personally.'

People DO have experiences with God in Christ in a PERSONAL way. God reaches His Own Sheep Himself.

Re-read what I wrote again before your "rush to judgment" (how ironic...)

I realize that many Christians have reverted to a "personal" idea of a relationship with Jesus, but that is simply not all that the Bible says on the subject.

Isn't it clear that I am not against the idea of a "personal meeeting"? It simply is not ALL that the Bible states on the matter. The community is part and parcel of "church" and that meeting with Christ. We go to Christ AS A BODY, as well.

If you feel the need for a doctrinal set to be hung over your head with the threat of non-compliance being burned alive forever and the subsequent need to take that to other believers, SO BE IT.

There is no point in trying to explain what Catholics believe on this matter. Suffice to say that we take the Words of Jesus Christ more seriously than you do... Even if it hurts the feelings of the politically correct.

I will not bow to such activity, period AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE...

Forgive me if I don't comment on the self-righteous rant, except to note that it seems to be more common from people with a pet peeve who continue to hold a grudge against other believers and can't find the word "forgiveness" as part of their vocabulary, despite all the talk about "love of neighbor".

I hadn't realized that "love of neighbor" only applied to those who were "really nice" to you first...

Regards

 

[WIP]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Please remember to address the topics and not the persons. Let's try to keep this civil.

 

[smaller]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

What exactly are you trying to accuse me of now?

Nothing other than denying the fast held position of your sect allowing adherents to hold to condemning outside believers to burn alive.

I asked you specifically if the official determinations of that church allows you to hold the position that outside believers WILL burn alive forever. Your answer was NAY. I don't believe that. Sorry. No offense but that is NOT a fact.

The position is largely held in that group. You know it and I know it. No sense naying what comes forth from their own mouths.

I don't think ANY "sect" teaches that one believer condemns another to hell. You are confusing:

discerning an action as one that would lead to hell
WITH actually making a judgment binding upon the believer.

I would simply refer you to the Popes recent statements of SHALL and WILL.

That is NOT a maybe.

No one is taking the place of God. They merely are saying that "in your present state of being (say, mortal sin), you are in danger of hellfire".

Shall and will are not maybe's.

I have already presented Scriptures that has JESUS HIMSELF making such statements... To the Catholic who made the statement to the Grandkids, HE HIMSELF was not condemning all Lutherans, but expressing his belief that maintaining a "heretical position", in his mind, would inevitably lead to the judgment of hell by God.

Uh huh. aka mental terrorism invoked AND ALLOWED by the group.

You know full well that you are ALLOWED to believe that, period.

While poorly done in this case, God does expect us to call other Christians to task if they fail, for the purpose of bringing them to repentance.

I'm not even going to get into the dissected myriads of minutia that constitute heresy in the RCC. We would end up with several pages of same and it's a worthless effort from what I've experienced as the bottom line is THIS:

Any 'believer' who knowingly openly disagrees with ANY of their determinations IS a heretic, bottom line.

And as such group adherents CAN openly hold such heretics UNDOUBTEDLY heading to the Lake of Fire. This is an allowed position. You are welcome to deny this fact.

Hardly WHY there are sects... People disagree with interpretation of Scriptures or over valid authority, not over deciding who "they" are sending to hell! In my discussions on this forum, RARELY does it come up that our differences revolve around "who I think should go to hell" vs "who you think should go to hell".

You again are welcome to try to divide the heretic from the holder of heresy as determined by your group by thinking if you don't attach a name you are not specifically condemning anyone. But that is not the case. The understanding IS allowed to be held and UNTO specific people who hold same. You don't 'have' to but it IS allowed.

True. That is why it is important to approach another Christian to chastise them from a relatively pure motive and heart, for it can easily be a moment of pride and hypocrisy. Such things must be done carefully, in love.

You and I will differ on the facts substantially as the myriad of heretical findings of the RCC are too numerous to get into.

In the structure of most theological systems of these natures,

LOVE = YOU MUST AGREE WITH MY DETERMINATIONS or you [will or may] burn alive forever.

I dispute that as being ANY remote equation of LOVE.

Sorry.

OK. And I understand your point. But this is not really a "denominational issue", but one of men in general, who have a propensity towards pride and hypocrisy. I don't see this "built in" to any sect's doctrinal statements, but rather, men themselves who are not as ecumenical as we would like to see.

You will fit in the RED BOX statements above as described. You are also welcome to deny that fact.

Using that dictum one would be far better off not hearing that gospel as AND ONLY PURSUE GOOD WORKS SALVATION apart from that gospel BECAUSE it would be far safer and one would not be required to hold that nonsense 'in heart.'

Once they hear those types of gospels NOW they must pursue both good works AND proper non-heretical understandings OR they themselves will/may fall and they inevitably must also spread that understanding to the very people they are to LOVE.

They would have been better off with good works ALONE.

One must also balance the zeal that goes along with discussing such issues and in thinking one is correct and serving God's Will. The Pharisees also were zealous and thought that they were serving God's Will. But that is not a function of Judaism, per sec, but men attempting to respond to someone who disagrees with what they think is the correct interpretation of God's Will found in Scriptures.

You can think whatever you want. I can not in good conscience condemn other believers to fry, period. I really don't care what they hold to.

I can NOT as a matter of good conscience start condemning other believers over the myriad of minutiae put forth by these groups over such idiotic nonsense as 'and of the Son.' Yet one can observe these groups LOCKED in STUBBORNESS for centuries over 4 words in their prescribed correctness.

One may as well condemn other believers for not having the exact number of angels dancing on the head of a pin if you get the drift.

Some are compelled to find reasons to make other submit to their WILLS rather than the simplicity of loving their neighbors as themselves. They MUST add to that in order to find SELF justifications.

That is NOT the Gospel. Sorry. It is insane to think that I would condemn as potential heretics, other believers over 4 WORDS! That is insane imho.

And these groups haven't even BEGAN to dissect the myriads of other such constructs.

Fact is they will NEVER get out of those boxes while in this present life.

Perhaps. This is why Paul CAN make such statements to other Christians, calling them infants and immature or James can call some "foolish". One doesn't need to be sinless, but one must present themselves as actually living the life of Christ within themselves. Yes, we are sinners, and the humble realize this. But that does NOT prevent (or absolve you of your responsibility of) the following of Jesus' mandate in Matthew 18.

If you believe that mandate is total agreement with your sect and your sect alone, we will certainly see much differently. I have no interest in trying to find life by condemning other believers as potential heretics as determined by a horde of other partial see-ers and sinners. That does not compute for me.

Paul saw only in part. Most sects claim they see it all perfectly.

I will readily admit I DON'T because it's was a FACT for Paul and it's a fact for ALL.

Wherefore then do all these stumbling blocks come from? From a horde of partial seeing sinners claiming they have it down pat.

To me that is just patent nonsense and the height of LOGICAL FALLACIES demonstrated.

The "authority" of such chastising will be based upon whether that person is considered 'righteous', as the Psalm states. We naturally would reject chastisement from someone who we knew was evil - and gladly accept it from someone we consider saintly.

Any honest believer should admit that evil is present with them. If they can not be honest with themselves they are not honest, period. Particularly when they ascend to the eternal judgment seat unto ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Well, maybe not gladly, but we would recognize the authority...

You will take what you are given and you can NOT question a bit of it to find anything different. If you do you are a heretic.

You are now judging others by your statement of "ignoring the darkness within themselves". It SOUNDS like you are saying that NO ONE has the right to chastise another Christian - and if they did, they must be evil. The fallacy of over-generalization...

Chastisement and condemning to burn alive forever are quite different Mr. FD. Nice try though.

Who is seeking to burn another believer? It is merely a statement of the current path, in that person's mind.

Merely?! Merely?! When did you transition to a state of sinless perfection?

Some people think I am bound to hell because I am Catholic. It doesn't mean that they SEEK for me to burn.

I would beg to differ. All of these various groups PROMOTE that understanding to other members of other sects. In some it's OVERT meaning done openly and in some it's COVERT, politely covered up, but assuredly THERE to be found with just a little bit of critical scratching. The megalomaniacs come out by the droves usually with just a bit of prompting.

Quite the opposite - they want to "convert" me to their line of thinking. They believe that my "mistakes" are leading me to hell.

Uh huh. Exactly my point. But you see I don't have to bear those issues because it does not interest me to go there 'in heart.' As far as I'm concerned you're saved, even if your group doesn't allow you to believe that for yourself.

Why? Because God has assured me that is the proper way to measure these things. If I desire MERCY and expect to get same, then I must measure same to others. Same with forgiveness. Same with having sins forgiven. There is no payday to heaven for NOT measuring in this way, jots and tittles irrelevant. There ARE matters more important for the heart.

Honestly, their zeal is commendable. Naturally, I think their presentation of the Gospel is in error. God will judge my actual end.

Of course you do. That is the essence of MOST of what passes for 'christianity' today. Emphasis on naturally.

I am expecting to enter heaven being WRONG.

I already gave you an example from Matthew 5... Jesus utilizes many such examples of "you better straighten out or else" in His teachings...

Uh huh. And that gives you license to condemn other believers to (will or may) burn alive forever? lol with that. I hope Jesus is totally impressed with the deadly accuracy of your positions.

I'm gonna cut out on the balance. We've pretty much done this deal.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

The Greek word "stenazō" means more than to just "sigh", as in prayer!!!

It means to "murmur", specifically as noted in Thayer's in reference to James 5:9.

In context, it clearly is synonymous with Lev 19:18, which explains what "grudge" means...

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

The context of James 5 is in reference to behaviour towards other Christians, not about "sighing during prayers"!!!

So yes, you are again text-twisting...

I said not one word about "sighing during prayer"....I didn't even imply sighing during prayer. You made that huge leap on your own. And you're comparing a Hebrew word "natar" which is different from the Greek word used here. Natar does mean to bear a grudge or to hold anger. Different word...different meaning. A closer word in Hebrew would be "lun" to murmer as in Psalm 59:15. "Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied."

If you read the verse in it's context, you will see that it's rather a sighing of discontent that a brother may not have it as rough as you do. A grumbling...which is why James speaks of having patience during times of afliction.

James 5:8-11 "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."

The other usage of "stenazo" in the New Testament is here...and is translated "grief," but "sighing" in Young's.

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

I never stated that, since I didn't say we are condemned for "sighing" :eeeekkk. We are under condemnation for grudging - which my reference to Matthew 5 should make CRYSTAL CLEAR...

YOU are taking the wrong meaning of the word used by James... The reference to the "judge" soon to appear places the context within the typical meaning of "to hold a grudge", not about sighing during prayer!!!

Regards

You're simply making the wrong connection, for it isn't the same as facing the danger of hellfire judgement.
The Lord will judge all the secrets of men beginning with the church, and certainly that isn't speaking of the danger of hellfire. James is speaking here of having patience even when tempted to grumble and complain...no "holding a grudge" intended at all. All men will give an account before the Lord...even our complaining, which is what this is referring to. I mention it because taking a verse out of context to prove some point that isn't there, isn't right.

Now you may take back your charge of "text-twisting." I'll be PATIENTLY WAITING.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Are you confident that, what you believe will guarantee your eternal destination

Yet AGAIN, you interject into Sacred Scriptures what is NOT there!!!

Where does Peter say "they never heeded it"? Quite the OPPOSITE! Read it again, glorydaz. It states that they DID obey and escape the corruptions of the world.

Forsaken the right way...just like those who followed after Jesus for a time and then left. That they left proves they were not of us to begin with....so says John.

They speak great sweilling words of vanity...they promise them liberty while are servants of corruption. They came out of the world system and entered the religious system, escaped for a time, never having lost their old nature.

vs. 18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Incorrect. When the Lord "clears demons out of the house", it does not remain empty. Either we are slaves to God or slaves to sin. When satan is removed, the Spirit of God comes. You are making the statement above because you presume that the Spirit of God will never leave someone, when the Bible gives us examples of such conditions where the Spirit is grieved and will leave.

That's obviously not true, if you read the text. Men do not have to have either a demon or the Holy Spirit residing in them. I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. This says the house was EMPTY so the demons returned. The Holy Spirit doesn't automatically move in to an empty shell. There must be belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and that hasn't happened with these from 2 Peter 2. They denied the Lord who bought them. Jesus paid the price for all sin....we can only then be saved by His LIFE when we are born again of God.

Matthew 12:43-45 "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation."

Wrong. Peter states that they return to a life ONE LIVED. This tells us that they HAD changed. You don't "return" to something unless you LEFT it!

The text says what it says.

More proof that you haven't really contemplated the text. It states that they ESCAPED CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD. Please tell me, how ELSE are we saved from corruption than by Jesus Christ's presence in us??? Doesn't Peter HIMSELF make this statement in Acts? No one is saved except through Jesus Christ. Thus, if someone had escaped the corruption of the world - sin - they did so because they WERE - IN THE PAST - a "born again believer.

They fell away. They RETURNED to a life of sin. We all know of such Christians who returned to a life of sin, a life worse off than before. Your point, as I have labored to point out, makes no sense and actually VOIDS the idea that we even KNOW we are saved to begin with!!! Regards

You're reading into the scripture your own understanding. It doesn't say that at all. It says escaped the "pollutions of the world"...the defilements. They came out from among them and hung with the church crowd, but that doesn't guarantee anyone eternal life. It says nothing about a heart circumcised by the Lord. You'd best reread that with a clear mind and see if you can't look at the entire chapter instead of just focusing on something you think takes away the promises of God to those who He has given a new heart and eternal life.

Are you saying you believe everyone who hears the Gospel message, even studies the Bible, and goes to church is born again? Basic common sense should tell you otherwise on that one. If that's what you think then I can totally understand why you believe we can lose our salvation.

Knowing the way of righteousness does not save us. Turning from the holy commandment that was delivered to them does not mean they received it into their heart. Sermons are delivered every Sunday all across this land, and that certainly doesn't mean they're received by all who hear them. "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."