Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

Bible Study Reception of the Holy Spirit

because every syllable of the Holy Text agrees with me.

Dear Terral,

That is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Maybe you do not quite understand what "Infallible" means?

Infallible means that someone cannot be wrong about the meaning of Scripture and the Christian Faith.

If you think that you have the 100% correct interpretation of Scripture and that people who disagree with you are all wrong, then that means that you think that you are infallible. My guess would be that you have said that "no one is infallible".

Which is it? Are you infallible or is there a chance that you might have the wrong interpretation?

You cannot have it both ways. If you think no man is infallible, as we believe the Pope is when he is speaking on matters of the faith to the Church, then you could be wrong about Scripture meaning. When we try to talk about Papal infability, you will undoubtedly say that no man is infallible... therefore you will have to admit that you could be wrong about Scripture. You cannot have it both ways unless your faith is a contradiction, if it is a contradiction then it is not the One Faith established by Christ.

You have a private interpretation of Scripture that no one held for almost 1600 years.

A few quotes:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, student of the Apostle John...
"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.


St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo, one of the Bishops involved in the Canon of the New Testament...
"Now Scripture asserts nothing but the Catholic faith"
- ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE - BOOK III
CHAP. 10.--HOW WE ARE TO DISCERN WHETHER A PHRASE IS FIGURATIVE
 
We Receive The Spirit By "Hearing With Faith" Toda

Hi IronMonk:

IronMonk >> That is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Everyone here has their own personal interpretation of Scripture. Your words represent your personal opinions about my interpretation of God’s Word. Please “quote me >>†and offer your own interpretations for something else.

IronMonk >> Maybe you do not quite understand what "Infallible" means? Infallible means that someone cannot be wrong about the meaning of Scripture and the Christian Faith.

Which Hebrew or Greek term are you translating into “Infallible?†Men can certainly be wrong about most anything passing across their tongue, especially if they send us posts using No Scripture.

IronMonk >> If you think that you have the 100% correct interpretation of Scripture and that people who disagree with you are all wrong, then that means that you think that you are infallible. My guess would be that you have said that "no one is infallible".

Please . . . Just “quote me >>†and show any errors in my interpretation above. Did you find anything to quote in this recent post? No. Your case for proving fallibility appears very weak thus far. Please try again.

IronMonk >> Which is it? Are you infallible or is there a chance that you might have the wrong interpretation?

LOL. If a frog had wings . . . Telling someone that they are wrong and proving your case using Scripture are two very different things. Please begin speaking this way AFTER you have refuted my interpretation above AND this side of the discussion has no reply. Otherwise your finger pointing and opinions really do not mean anything.

IronMonk >> You cannot have it both ways. If you think no man is infallible, as we believe the Pope is when he is speaking on matters of the faith to the Church, then you could be wrong about Scripture meaning.

How about presenting “IronMonk’s†private interpretations and let’s leave the Pope out of this. Your assertion is that something is errant in my post above. Great! Now prove that using Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:15. I would love to quote you and begin making arguments, but you have not made one comment on anything I actually wrote above.

IronMonk >> When we try to talk about Papal infability, you will undoubtedly say that no man is infallible...

Please . . . The topic here is “Reception of the Holy Spirit.†The Kingdom disciples did that by the laying of hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) through the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’ We do that today by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2) by Gospel #2 of the outline above dated (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm). Those differences are highlighted for you in bold print. If anyone here sees things differently, then simply quote any errors and offer your case using Scripture. Otherwise this side has no reason to change anything.

IronMonk Continues >> . . . therefore you will have to admit that you could be wrong about Scripture. You cannot have it both ways unless your faith is a contradiction, if it is a contradiction then it is not the One Faith established by Christ. You have a private interpretation of Scripture that no one held for almost 1600 years. (snip Ignatius and Hippo renderings are not Inspired writing from God).

You are making this bold claim apart from actually using one verse of Scripture. Are we to read your mind and figure out what you are trying to prove? Maybe some of us have yet to figure out the difference between ‘chatting’ about these topics and actually ‘Debating’ the truth of God’s Word using supported statements. What makes your version any more of a ‘private interpretation’ as mine? At least my views are clearly presented in outlines, and I am asking others to please quote me and show errors. Again, I would like to quote from your case, but you never made one.

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ,

Terral
 
Please Quote Me And Point Out Errors Using Scripture

Hi Thessalonian (IronMonk mentioned):

Thessalonian >> Another infallible interpreter.

Your partner IronMonk just expressed the same things. Did you find anything errant in my posts above to quote and refute? No. Why should this side of the discussion even begin to think his interpretations are errant, when neither of you have even quoted a single word?? I cannot quote from your case against mine either, because you also have not presented anything. If you will be so kind as to present your doctrinal outline teaching your ‘one gospel’ and how believers receive the Holy Spirit, then I will certainly quote you and be happy to give comment. Until then this side has presented his case clearly and you guys have presented none. Complaining is just complaining . . .

Thessalonian >> Get with Heidi and Solo. Perhaps between the three of you you can work out which one of your infallible interpretations are correct.

And now you want to play matchmaker? I quoted your every word in the post above and used Scripture to show your error. Where is your thoughtful reply to one thing? Heh . . . Please forgive, but your wish for this side to pretend fallibility will become a reality in the day you decide to actually prove something using Scripture. What part of my recent post appears “nonsense and word splitting†now? Please try again if you ever find anything errant in my posts to quote.

Thessalonian >> I have not left out scripture for lack of it but for lack of time. If I have the copius amounts you seem to have and think I should have I may get around to it.

What are you going on about? Are you trying to say ‘copious,’ as in ‘abundant’ amounts of time? Please take all the time you like and show everyone the folly of my interpretations above. This side requires much less time, because he knows this topic backwards and forwards from top to the bottom; inside and out. You guys are mixing the doctrinal components of the gospel of the kingdom AND Paul’s Gospel together, as these two gospel messages allow the believer to receive the Holy Spirit in two different ways (laying of hands = gospel of the kingdom = Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6 AND ‘hearing with faith’ = Paul’s gospel = Galatians 3:2). My supported statements from the posts above remain standing, because neither you or IronMonk have a Scriptural reply. If you did then we would be looking at that instead of these empty posts.

Thessalonian >> But I am also afraid it takes more of a birds eye approach than your proof texting approach.

That is the spirit! Now head back up there and try to find one error in anything I said and show everyone the fallibility of my flimsy interpretations. GL. Your failure to find even one is proof to the third party readers that my side is indeed correct.

Thessalonian >> Further it may require the removal of the sun glasses. Something I don't have the power to do.

Heh . . . Are you acknowledging that your side of this Debate has no ammunition? Please present your case for anything fallible in any of my posts at your earliest convenience. Otherwise every word I have presented above remains standing now and forever. Surely you guys can find at least one thing wrong . . .

GL in the Debate and thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Terral,

You have to understand something: "You do not see error in what you write because it is your private interpretation of Scripture."

Of course you are not going to think you are in error.

When we look at what the first Christians wrote about the Faith in the first three hundred years or so, they disagree with you.

You do not hold the same faith as the first Christians.

If you think you do, please show me with references...

You can buy the writings here: http://www.logos.com/products/details/518

NOTE: This complete set of the writings of the Early Church Fathers translated into English is one of the most important collections of historical, philosophical and theological writings available to the student of the Christian Church.
...
The Early Church Fathers CD-ROM comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text.

OR read them for FREE at http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/


If you are correct in your interpretation of Scripture, you will be able to show us with quotes from the first Christians within a few hundred years of 33 AD.


Otherwise, please try and understand this concept... You could be wrong.

You are not going to see error in your own interpretation of Scripture, but you must accept the fact that you could be wrong.

Do you know what interpretation means?

Your interpretation of the bible is what you think the text means about the Christian Faith.

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.


How do you know that you have not misunderstood the Scriptures? You can't by simply reading them. You must start in the first few hundred years of Christianity to know.


Ignorance is not bliss.
 
Terrel,

because neither you or IronMonk have a Scriptural reply. If you did then we would be looking at that instead of these empty posts.


It seems that you cannot see the trees through the forest. We have stated a lot of scripture - if you don't know Scripture well enough that we have to put references for you, then we will do so. Here is a little scripture for you....


Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

Eph. 1:13 - Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.

Eph. 4:30 - Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments - baptism, confirmation, death and judgment - which apply to all people.

John 6:27 - Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.

Rev. 9:4 - the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.

First Christian writings NOTE the dates

"And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:12 (A.D. 181) .

"'And she said to her maids, Bring me oil.' For faith and love prepare oil and unguents to those who are washed. But what were these unguents, but the commandments of the holy Word? And what was the oil, but the power of the Holy Spirit, with which believers are anointed as with ointment after the layer of washing? All these things were figuratively represented in the blessed Susannah, for our sakes, that we who now believe on God might not regard the things that are done now in the Church as strange, but believe them all to have been set forth in figure by the patriarchs of old, as the apostle also says: 'Now these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the world are come.'" Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel, 6;18 (A.D. 204) .

"After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction,--a practice derived from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, then were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called "Christ,' from the 'chrism, 'which is 'the unction;' which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was 'anointed' with the Spirit by God the Father; as written in the Acts: 'For truly they were gathered together in this city against Thy Holy Son whom Thou hast anointed.' Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs cornally, (on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins." Tertullian, On Baptism, 7 (A.D. 206) .

"But Satan, who entered and dwelt in him for a long time, became the occasion of his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?'" Pope Cornelius [regn. A.D. 251-253], To Fabius, fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 6,43:14 (A.D. 251) .

"It is also necessary that he should be anointed who is baptized; so that, having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed of God, and have in him the grace of Christ. Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them. But we ought to know and remember that it is written, 'Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head,' which the Holy Spirit before forewarned in the Psalms, lest any one going out of the way and wandering from the path of truth should be anointed by heretics and adversaries of Christ." Cyprian, To Januarius, Epistle 70/69:2 (A.D. 255) .

"They who are baptized must after Baptism be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ." Council of Laodicea, Canon 48 (A.D. 343-381) .



Teaching Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally "anointed" priests in "ordination" to minister in the priests' "office."

Numbers 16:40 - shows God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God's intention that, through the "laying on of hands," one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
 
Terrel,

I have a question...

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?
 
One Word From God Is GREATER Than All The Words of Men

Hi IronMonk:

Thank you very much for sending this reply.

IronMonk >> You have to understand something: "You do not see error in what you write because it is your private interpretation of Scripture." Of course you are not going to think you are in error.

That is why we have IronMonk here to “quote me >>†and show the errors using God’s Word. Which ‘errors’ are you talking about? GL.

IronMonk >> When we look at what the first Christians wrote about the Faith in the first three hundred years or so, they disagree with you.

Accurately handing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) is about IronMonk showing Terral out of God’s Word. One Word from God is greater than all the words of men combined.

IronMonk >> You do not hold the same faith as the first Christians. If you think you do, please show me with references... (snip)

If you can find anything errant in my statements above then please help yourself to quoting me and proving anything you like using Scripture. If one Word from God is like all the oceans and seas of this world, then combined works of all your church fathers do not amount to one thimbleful of water. The secrets of men will still be judged according to Paul’s “my gospel†(Romans 2:16) and you sir do not know the difference.

IronMonk >> If you are correct in your interpretation of Scripture, you will be able to show us with quotes from the first Christians within a few hundred years of 33 AD. Otherwise, please try and understand this concept... You could be wrong. (snip meaningless dribble).

Heh . . . No. Everything I wrote above will continue standing, until you drum up something contrary using God’s Living Word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This side of the discussion knows perfectly well that these interpretations have withstood the test of debate long before they were presented here. I welcome the opportunity to prove that to you, if you will only ‘quote me >>’ and point out a single error using Scripture. Please try again if you ever find one errant statement from any of my posts. GL.

IronMonk >> Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?

My debating opponents remove the splinter from my eye on a topic from time to time, by pointing out the errors and making a case from Scripture. Please stop using the threads as your private messaging service. There is no Scripture in any of your posts and some of us are not here to pass chat. GL in the Debate,

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
ironmonk said:
Terrel,

I have a question...

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?



Terrl>>Everything I wrote above will continue standing, until you drum up something contrary using God’s Living Word.

Terrl, you are not writing God's Living Word, you are writing what you think the bible means. What you write will not continue standing. What God has guided the authors of the bible books to write will continue to stand.



I ask again...
Terrel,

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?
 
Terral

There is no Scripture in any of your posts and some of us are not here to pass chat.

Um this is bearing false withness. That's in ex 20 if you want to look it up. Perhaps you have a good enough grasp of scripture that you don't have to. Look on the previous page, last post by IM. I do see a post or two of yours that don't use scripture so perhaps you would like to stop using the board as private chat as well.
 
My debating opponents remove the splinter from my eye on a topic from time to time, by pointing out the errors and making a case from Scripture.


Terral,

You miss one very important part of the Christian faith and that is Sacred Tradition as talked about in the Scripture...

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

1 Corin 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.


What does the bible say that the pillar and foundation of Truth is?


1 Tim 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth


Where in the bible does the bible say it is all we need?

No where.

What does Christ say?

"Tell the Church".

St Matt 18:17 (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Christ would not tell people to "Tell the Church" UNLESS it is the Church that holds the correct meaning of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Hmmmm... Scripture also states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation". What you post is private interpretation so according to Scripture - you are wrong.


Please stop using the threads as your private messaging service. There is no Scripture in any of your posts and some of us are not here to pass chat. GL in the Debate,

Are you ignoring my posts? It appears so because I quote quite a bit of Scripture. Or you don't know the bible very well.
 
Re: Still waiting.............

ironmonk said:
Terral,

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?

You think you are always right about scripture, do you not? :wink: Or do you have your opinions because you think they're wrong? :o The truth can only be found in the bible, my friend. So if you want clarification, that's where you look...and not to only a few passages, but to all of scripture so that your interpretation doesn't contradict any scripture. :)
 
Re: Still waiting.............

Heidi said:
ironmonk said:
Terral,

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?

You think you are always right about scripture, do you not? :wink: Or do you have your opinions because you think they're wrong? :o The truth can only be found in the bible, my friend. So if you want clarification, that's where you look...and not to only a few passages, but to all of scripture so that your interpretation doesn't contradict any scripture. :)


No, I do not think I am right.

I know the Church established by Christ is always right about Scripture. As promised by Christ....


John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,
17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
...
26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

Jesus promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, in Truth. The Church cannot be wrong about faith and morals, because Jesus said so.



1 Tim 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.


The Pillar and Foundation of Truth according to Scripture is the Church.


St Matt 18:17 (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector



St. Matt 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."



Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"


2 Timothy 3:14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Romans 10:17
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ

NOTE: it says "what is heard".... not "what is read".


1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you


Ephesians 3:5
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,

Ephesians 2:20
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

The Church built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ as the capstone and NEVER to be overcome.

1 Corin 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.


Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.


If the Scripture was all we needed then the Eunuch in Acts 8 would not need someone to instruct him. Philip was part of the Church, which the Church has teaching authority among men because Christ promised that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit and that Christ would never leave it.
 
Re: Still waiting.............

Heidi said:
ironmonk said:
Terral,

Are you always right about the meaning of Scripture?

You think you are always right about scripture, do you not? :wink: Or do you have your opinions because you think they're wrong? :o The truth can only be found in the bible, my friend. So if you want clarification, that's where you look...and not to only a few passages, but to all of scripture so that your interpretation doesn't contradict any scripture. :)

That's nice Heidi. Nothing you say contradicts scripture and nothing solo says contradicts scripture and nothing MM says .... and now we have Mr. Terral on the forum who never contradicts scripture either. Yet you contradict eachother. :o Methinks theirs a problem here. You might want to check your prescription. This is what the forumla Protestants use brings about. Every man and his Bible is the most divisive doctrine known to man.
 
Terral Is Here To Write On "The Topic" Of This Thr

Hi IronMonk:

Thank you for writing. Please check the topic of this thread and quote anything you find errant in any of my statements above. Your focus is upon “Terral†and not the topic of this thread.

IronMonk >> You miss one very important part of the Christian faith and that is Sacred Tradition as talked about in the Scripture...

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (snip)

Paul is talking about the traditions taught in his letters to the Gentile churches, which have nothing to do with the interpretations and dogma of your own church fathers. The Pentecostals have their traditions and the Baptists and the Assemblies of God and so on. Your Roman Catholic Church fathers had just as much right to be wrong as anybody else and their combined body of church doctrine is uninspired and worthless in this discussion. If you are using God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17) instead of dogma from your church fathers, then we are all on the same page.

IronMonk >> Are you ignoring my posts? It appears so because I quote quite a bit of Scripture. Or you don't know the bible very well.

Quote the entire Bible if you like. Did you find anything errant in my posts above to quote and prove errant using a case supported by your verses? No. What is the topic of this thread? “Reception of the Holy Spirit.†My supported arguments above are about “Reception of the Holy Spirit†for those believing the “gospel of the kingdom†(Gospel #1 = laying of hands = Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) AND Paul’s Gospel (#2 = hearing with faith = Galatians 3:2). Your complaining and off topic grandstanding is about something else entirely. I cannot “quote you†on anything related to the topic of “this thread†because you refuse to write on the topic. Thessalonian asks:

Question from OP >> “What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian.â€Â

My answers appear unchallenged above, unless one of you wish to “quote me >>†and show errors using Scripture. GL in the Debate.

IronMonk >> No, I do not think I am right.

Great! Head back up the thread and find something errant in 'my testimony' on 'the topic' of this Thread. The third party 'readers' can decide if Terral or IronMonk is hitting anywhere near the mark on this topic of Receiving the Holy Spirit.

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Terral,

This thread is not about the gospel of the kingdom and your theories about two gospels. Would you kindly not clutter my thread with such nonsense.
 
Terral Is Here To Write On "The Topic" Of This Thr

Hi Heidi and Thessalonian:

Thank you for writing.

Heidi >> You think you are always right about scripture, do you not?

My statements above remain standing and nobody here has yet to “quote >>†anything and build a case for something else. Mr. IronMonk is writing off the topic of “Receiving The Holy Spirit,†just like you. My opinions about my own testimony are irrelevant to this discussion.

Heidi >> Or do you have your opinions because you think they're wrong?

Thank you for pointing out that Mr. IronMonk is asking rhetorical ‘off topic’ questions.

Heidi >> The truth can only be found in the bible, my friend.

That is why my arguments are supported by Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:15. Please find something errant in my posts and give us your presentation for something else. I would love to "quote you >>" and your interpretations on this topic, but you are writing about something else . . .

Heidi >> So if you want clarification, that's where you look...

If you want to see my interpretations of Scripture, then head back up and read posts dated Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm, Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm. You will find plenty of Scripture in my posts.

Heidi >> and not to only a few passages, but to all of scripture so that your interpretation doesn't contradict any scripture.

All of you are encouraged to “quote >>†anything from my posts that appears to contradict Scripture in any way AND show the folly of my interpretations to everyone here using Scripture of your very own. Does that found fair or what? Did you find anything wrong in my posts above to quote and place in this most recent post to Terral? No. These little love letters are not worthy of a reply, but,

Thank you for writing anyway. Good luck in the Debate,

Thessalonian >> That's nice Heidi. Nothing you say contradicts scripture and nothing solo says contradicts scripture and nothing MM says .... and now we have Mr. Terral on the forum who never contradicts scripture either. Yet you contradict eachother. Methinks theirs a problem here.

That is why you are here to "quote >>" any of those problems and show the errors using Scripture. Pointing fingers and complaining is a long way from building your case for something else.

Thessalonian >> You might want to check your prescription. This is what the forumla Protestants use brings about. Every man and his Bible is the most divisive doctrine known to man.

How about if you give your views and Terral gives his using Scripture also. Then the readers can judge us both, which they will do anyway. All of this whining is evidence that you guys have no case against one thing I wrote above. : 0 ).

Keep up the nice work . . . and thank you for writing also,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Mr. Terral. That appears to be a chat room post. Kindly don't clutter my thread with chatroom posts. Thank you. :-D
 
Terral Is Here To Write On "The Topic" Of This Thr

Hi Thessalonian:

Thank you very much for writing. Did you have any luck finding one errant statement in anything from my three long posts dated Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm, Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm? No? Well, keep on trying . . .

Thessalonian >> This thread is not about the gospel of the kingdom and your theories about two gospels. Would you kindly not clutter my thread with such nonsense.

Surely you jest! Your question about how we receive the Holy Spirit is answered by recognizing that New Testament believers do that by obedience to a gospel message. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit just pops out of thin air? Please . . . Here is the opening statements from your own Opening Post:

------------------
Thessalonian >> I asked this in theology and apolgetics but it is a Bible Study question I think. What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian. Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary.

Thessalonian Quotes >> John.7 [39] Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Acts.19 [2] And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
-------------

Paul is ‘preaching the kingdom’ (Acts 20:25) to these ‘disciples’ in Acts 19:1-6, which is described in three lines of Gospel #1. This is from my post dated (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm)

Terral Original (with Highlights) >>
--------------------------
This is NOT our gospel for today. Nobody has been saved by this Gospel message for almost 2000 years.
------------------

I. Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:23 , Matthew 9:35, Matthew 24:14, Acts 8:12). Gospel to the Circumcised. Galatians 2:7.

1. The good news that the ‘kingdom of heaven’ is ‘at hand’ (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:7). i.e., ‘preaching the kingdom.’ Acts 20:25.
2. According to Prophecy; seen by the OT Prophets. Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1.
3. Obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments. Matthew 19:16-17.
4. Water baptism (during confession) for the ‘forgiveness of sins.’ Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38. (John’s Baptism; Acts 19:3; name of the Father; John 1:6, 33, Matthew 28:19.)
5. Baptism in the ‘name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5), ‘name of the Son’ (Matthew 28:19)
6. Receive the Spirit through the baptism in the ‘name of the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19) through the laying of hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6).
7. Justified by ‘works and not by faith alone.’ James 2:20-24.
8. Kingdom disciples are under Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:18, James 2:10)
.
---------------------

How can my outline for the way kingdom disciples receive the Holy Spirit be off the topic, when you quoted from the same passage yourself in the Opening Post? You are being silly. However, the evidence also indicates that IronWolf has written many posts off the topic and you have nothing to say about it. Nothing reeks more than a double standard . . . Would you like me to highlight all of his off topic posts or are you catching my drift?

The fact of the matter is that you have no reply for the fact that kingdom disciples received the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6), but Paul’s Gospel shows we receive the Spirit today by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2), which my two outlines clearly show. Then, to say my posts are off the topic?? Heh . . . and then to have IronMonk writing many off topic posts and you say nothing? Please . . . the third party readers and judges OF US ALL are much smarter than perhaps you realize. They require solid cases build using sound arguments based upon God’s Living Word apart from all of this nonsense. Our arguments either withstand the test of thorough debate or they do not . . . period. I am happy to offer clarifying testimony to support my positions in this discussion, if anyone among you will simply point out the errors in those three posts. Here they are again if you missed it above: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm, Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm.

Good luck in the Debate,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Surely you jest! Your question about how we receive the Holy Spirit is answered by recognizing that New Testament believers do that by obedience to a gospel message. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit just pops out of thin air? Please . . . Here is the opening statements from your own Opening Post:

No I do not jest. I know how the Holy Spirit is recieved. The question in this thread is not how it is recieved or whether it comes out of thin air but whether or not one can receive it by himself off in timbucktoo land? There is no incident of this happening anywhere in the NT. So your tangential gospel of the kingdom posts have little to do with the topic at hand. If you want to create a thread about how people recieve the Holy Spirit by all means do.

You are being silly. However, the evidence also indicates that IronWolf has written many posts off the topic and you have nothing to say about it. Nothing reeks more than a double standard . .
.

This sounds like whining to me. No. I am only pointing out the hypocrysy of your demeanor so far on this board. But of course you will not see it. Now can we quit with the chat room discussions. Thank you.
 
My Case Is Already Presented. GL.

Hi Thessalonian:

Thank you very much for writing. Were you able to find one thing errant in any of those three long posts above? You found nothing to “quote >>†and refute using Scripture? With all the chatter about how wrong Terral is, this side of the discussion was hoping you found something to discuss. : 9 (.

Thessalonian >> No I do not jest. I know how the Holy Spirit is recieved*.

In that case your question in the OP was rhetorical and some consider that ‘trolling.’ Maybe that answers the question of why you appear unwilling to debate this topic, but wish to concentrate your attention on your debating opponent who quoted you and proved your positions errant. The Samarians of Acts 8:12-17 AND the disciples of Acts 19:1-6 received the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands. Right or wrong? Right. If either of them heard Paul’s Gospel (#2 from my post (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm), then they would have received the Holy Spirit back in verse 12 by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2). However, Peter and John did indeed head over to lay hands on the Samarians so that they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:17, just like the ‘disciples’ of Acts 19:6. The reason is that both groups (Samarians in Acts 8 AND Disciples in Acts 19) were hearing the “good news concerning the kingdom of God†(Acts 8:12), which is the “Gospel of the Kingdom†(Matthew 24:14) and Gospel #1 of my two gospels outline. How do you explain this seeming contradiction in how the believers of these two gospels receive the Spirit differently? You have no reply . . . Which is why you are chucking these stones, instead of building any kind of case to defend your original hypothesis. If this pleases you then please keep up the nice work . . .

Thessalonian >> The question in this thread is not how it is received or whether it comes out of thin air but whether or not one can receive it by himself off in timbucktoo land?

Very nice. However, your opening statements do not match your current statement at all. What did you ask in the OP?

Thessalonian Thesis Statement from OP >> I asked this in theology and apolgetics* but it is a Bible Study question I think. What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian. Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary*.â€Â

Note that your misspellings of both ‘apologetics* and necessary*’ appear exactly like they do in the Opening Post, just like ‘received*’ in your recent post. How then do you say that the ‘question in this thread is NOT how it is received . . .?â€Â

Thessalonian >> There is no incident of this happening anywhere in the NT.

There is no incidence of what happening in the New Testament? Oh, ". . . timbucktoo land . . .".

Thessalonian >> So your tangential gospel of the kingdom posts have little to do with the topic at hand.

We disagree. The fact that you cannot visualize or recognize the substance of my presentation speaks only to your lack of vision. Your claim earlier was that that my testimony was somehow contradictory (Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:15 pm), but now the content of my very long posts to you above ‘have little to do with the topic at hand.’ Haaaaa! What will be the excuse in ten more minutes? The two gospels of the New Testament EXPLAINS why the kingdom disciples received the Holy Spirit through the ‘laying of hands’ (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) AND why we today receive the Spirit by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2). What is your reason for these differences? Good Luck . . .

Thessalonian >> If you want to create a thread about how people recieve the Holy Spirit by all means do.

Heh. Why? That is your question to open this discussion. Do you have a response to my three long posts or not? Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm, Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm.? No you do not. That fact is becoming clearer by the moment . . .

Terral Original >> You are being silly. However, the evidence also indicates that IronWolf has written many posts off the topic and you have nothing to say about it. Nothing reeks more than a double standard . .

Thessalonian >> This sounds like whining to me. No. I am only pointing out the hypocrysy of your demeanor so far on this board. But of course you will not see it. Now can we quit with the chat room discussions. Thank you.

Heh . . . your post to me was a chat room post. How do you expect anyone to reply on the topic, when you refuse to write about that? Hypocrisy has only two ‘y's’ BTW, and the ‘i’ before ‘e’ rule does not apply to ‘receive’ above; except after ‘c’ remember? Like neighbor and weigh . . . If we are going to chat then we can at least try to be educational. Please carry on this way if you like, but my three posts above await your reply to ‘this topic.’ If you feel they do not speak to anything you said, even though I quoted most everything you said (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm), (Tues Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm), (Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm), then that is fine by me. If you ever find any errors in those posts, then I am happy to quote you and give a thoughtful reply. Otherwise my case is already presented. Have a great day and,

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Back
Top