THE WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY

[eternally-gratefull]

We both agree that God will not allow the gates of hell to triumph over the Church. Whether you believe the Church is strictly an invisible union or both an invisible union and a visible institution is a different matter all together. But here you go again equating tradition and antiquity with the Pharisees. Address why Protestant thought is nowhere to be found in Church history before the reformation instead of just using a false equation excuse.

so what we have is your opinion. Based on what men say?

My belief comes from the word of God. the catholic church forbade anyone to read the word for hundreds of years.Not to mention, anyone who apposed them had their lives taken away. So one would expect a belief which apposed the roman way would be hidden from history.

Yet again. The jews had this same philosophy. and arguments. and used the same tactics. That is why you would not have found any recorded evidence anyone believed as Jesus did when he came. And also why Jesus used scripture. And not history, or outside sources to prove who he was, and what he taught was from God.

So I guess people who use Jesus example are just wrong. And those who use the jewsih example are correct? Forgive me for seeing the irony in that type of thinking.

I am sorry you are upset I keep using the jews as an example. Just like you can't see what is really in Gods word. you can't see the way your church is behaving, which is just like the jews. I can't help that.

I have no doubt that the Catholic Church would not crucify Christ if he came again, for we teach pure Apostolic truth. Protestants on the other hand might have a problem when Jesus rebukes them for shattering the unity of the Church, failing to discern His Body and Blood, and neglecting the Saints.

Nah, You would crucify him, because as he did with the pharisees and their works based atonement belief, he would reject yours. I don't reject unity of the church. I trust God to keep his church intact. and he has. I do not neglect his saints. I also do not hold them up as Gods. And the body and blood you speak of gave me eternal life. I do not fail to discern what jesus meant in John 6. I did not take Gods truth, ad pegan and jewish ritual, and call it Gods church.

God enables the Church to triumph over heretics. But when you start rejecting the ECF's and their decisions your on a slippery slope. If they were wrong about this, then why aren't they wrong about that and eventually the very canon of Scripture which you trust is in question, since it was decided by Church Councils. Really what you and other Protestants want to do is accept the ECF's when they agree with you and decry them as false when they don't. History is protestantism's Achilles heel. As the old saying goes "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".

See this is your problem. Your basing your whole faith on men. It is protestant verses catholic, it can't be anything else. This is not true. Satans lie has always been mixed with truth. So there is going to always be agreement in some areas. So yet again, you use a foolish excuse as "we only agree when it suits us" which is not true. I could care less about the catholic church. What I care about is how I will get to heaven. How I will be forgiven. And how I can share that to those around me. You don't want to discuss scripture. you want to discuss catholic vs protestant. WHO CARES. The word of God is what is important, not whether your catholic or protestant.

More precisely Protestantism is inconsistent with how the Church has always interpreted Scripture, and non-Sacramental forms of Protestantism require quite a few leaps of logic in order to accept their rejection of the Real Presence, and the remission of sins in Baptism. Basically they play a game of "it's literal if it agrees with me otherwise it's a metaphor or a symbol". Which is just intellectually dishonest.

yep. the jews said the same when the church rejected their sacramental system of circumcision and other ceremonies. All satan did was take the ceremonial law of the jews. and replace it with the ceremonial law of the church. and magically we have the roman catholic church. It is like. No works of any kind saved any OT saint. But for some reason God wanted to place works and conditions on saving nt people. Even though his death is what saved OT saints. his death is not good enough for us.. You see the irony?

And here you go with protestant vs catholic bull. Is that all you know? what about the word of God. how come you people never want to discuss the word?

Actually no it doesn't. You believe Moses existed and parted the Red Sea, you believe David slew Goliath, you believe that Solomon built a temple.

none of which had a thing to do with anyone being saved eternally or not.so why you want to go here makes no sense. I am talking about what saves people. Again we always will have things which agree.No one denies the things you speek of. But no one will be saved by them either. this was not what jesus and the jews were arguing about now was it. Your point is invalid!

Now if your reffering to the fact that Jesus brought a New Testament, well he did and he's God and can do such a thing. Last time I checked Jesus never came down from heaven during the Reformation to bring a New Gospel to the people and to decry all the history before it as false. When Jesus comes back and says that tell me and I'll be the first in line to join up with the Protestants. Until then I'll continue to trust in God's promises to the Church.

Your right, he did not have to. His gospel was in the bible. As paul said we had enough knowledge from the OT to be saved, and did not even need the new (if we did, no OT person will be in heaven, they will all be doomed because they were never given the gospel) The gospel is the same today as it was in adams day, In abrahams day, In davids day, In moses day, In jeremiahs day, In daniels day, In malachi's day. In Jesus day, And Pauls day, And today. It has always been about Christ, the promised redeemer.

You seem to think God came and gave mankind a new way to be saved. He did not. No one was saved by the old covenant. The old covenant showed how mankind can be blessed by God on earth. That was done away with. and we have been given a new covenant. So we can be blessed on earth as a restored people to God.

The way to eternal life has never changed since gen 3: 15. And will never change.

Now address the lack of continuity and consistency in Protestantism instead of dismissing such arguments against it as Pharisaical. I find it strange that Protestants claim to have it right when they can't even agree amongst themselves, say what you want about the Catholic Church but we have maintained unity and are truly One Bread and One Body.

your not united yourself, Your church has a history of being split in things. again, this is not a catholic/protestant issue. YOU MAKE IT THAT WAY. A church is a church, it does not matter if it is catholic orthodox or protestant. A church is the church. There is only one gospel. If you follow the gospel. you will be saved. If you do not, you will be doomed. it does not matter what church you belong to.

 

[SantoSubito]

so what we have is your opinion. Based on what men say?

Based upon what holy men of God said based on their reading of the Scriptures. There are some heavy hitters (actually all the heavy hitters) among them. Like Ignatius for one.

My belief comes from the word of God. the catholic church forbade anyone to read the word for hundreds of years.Not to mention, anyone who apposed them had their lives taken away. So one would expect a belief which apposed the roman way would be hidden from history.

We've been over how false and historically impossible it is for the situation you present to be what really happened so I'll answer it with one sentence. We have the writings of the Gnostics, if we have their writings then why wouldn't we have the writings of these supposed proto-protestants?

Yet again. The jews had this same philosophy. and arguments. and used the same tactics. That is why you would not have found any recorded evidence anyone believed as Jesus did when he came. And also why Jesus used scripture. And not history, or outside sources to prove who he was, and what he taught was from God.

So I guess people who use Jesus example are just wrong. And those who use the jewsih example are correct? Forgive me for seeing the irony in that type of thinking.

Your missing a few important things when you present this dichotomy. First, no one believed as Jesus did because it had not yet been revealed, after it was revealed no one believed as protestants do until the reformation, so it logically follows that protestantism was an innovation and not a continuation of what was revealed.

I am sorry you are upset I keep using the jews as an example. Just like you can't see what is really in Gods word. you can't see the way your church is behaving, which is just like the jews. I can't help that.

I see perfectly what is in God's word. But you fail to see all of God's word and you fail to see that same word being used by the ECF's to propound a view of the Church that is thoroughly Catholic. You try to villainize the Church by claiming that because she values tradition and what has been handed down to us by our fathers in faith she is just like the Pharisees refusing to see the light of Christ. When in reality the Church rejects your views because they are but a mere reflection of the radiance emanating from the Sun of God, and why would the Church trade the source of the light for a mere reflection thereof?

Nah, You would crucify him, because as he did with the pharisees and their works based atonement belief, he would reject yours. I don't reject unity of the church. I trust God to keep his church intact. and he has. I do not neglect his saints. I also do not hold them up as Gods. And the body and blood you speak of gave me eternal life. I do not fail to discern what jesus meant in John 6. I did not take Gods truth, ad pegan and jewish ritual, and call it Gods church.

You say you have unity, but you have none, Protestantism by it's very nature causes disunity. You say you discern the Body and Blood, and yet you forsake the Eucharist. What you have done is try and recreate the Church based on what you found in the Bible, but you have failed, why? Because it was never meant to be that way, the Church was never meant to be based on a book.

You can never claim with certainty that you have the 100% absolute truth in all things, and God would not leave his people like that. He gave us an infallible book, but he also gave us an infallible interpreter of that same book.

See this is your problem. Your basing your whole faith on men. It is protestant verses catholic, it can't be anything else. This is not true. Satans lie has always been mixed with truth. So there is going to always be agreement in some areas. So yet again, you use a foolish excuse as "we only agree when it suits us" which is not true. I could care less about the catholic church. What I care about is how I will get to heaven. How I will be forgiven. And how I can share that to those around me. You don't want to discuss scripture. you want to discuss catholic vs protestant. WHO CARES. The word of God is what is important, not whether your catholic or protestant.

Nay, not on men, but on the power of God working through these holy men. This conversation was never about scripture, rather it was about Church history.

yep. the jews said the same when the church rejected their sacramental system of circumcision and other ceremonies. All satan did was take the ceremonial law of the jews. and replace it with the ceremonial law of the church. and magically we have the roman catholic church. It is like. No works of any kind saved any OT saint. But for some reason God wanted to place works and conditions on saving nt people. Even though his death is what saved OT saints. his death is not good enough for us.. You see the irony?

And here you go with protestant vs catholic bull. Is that all you know? what about the word of God. how come you people never want to discuss the word?

If you look back at the Church they never rejected the sacramental system, they rejected the Jewish sacraments which were mere shadows of the sacraments Christ gave the Church. The Passover was but a shadow of Christ giving us his very Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Circumcision was but a shadow of the saving grace of God in Baptism. Christ did not reject the sacramental system; He brought it to it's fullness, what was once a shadow He transformed into light.

none of which had a thing to do with anyone being saved eternally or not.so why you want to go here makes no sense. I am talking about what saves people. Again we always will have things which agree.No one denies the things you speek of. But no one will be saved by them either. this was not what jesus and the jews were arguing about now was it. Your point is invalid!

You, my friend, are the one who missed the point. you said: "To be a christian would be to throw 2000 years of jewish history out the door. And claim it to be false and fabricated. This is what Jesus did 2000 years after jewish religion was started." and in response I said:

"Actually no it doesn't. You believe Moses existed and parted the Red Sea, you believe David slew Goliath, you believe that Solomon built a temple."

What I was demonstrating was that Jesus never rejected the historicity of Judaism and proposed some alternate history, which is what you would have to do to be protestant.

Your right, he did not have to. His gospel was in the bible. As paul said we had enough knowledge from the OT to be saved, and did not even need the new (if we did, no OT person will be in heaven, they will all be doomed because they were never given the gospel) The gospel is the same today as it was in adams day, In abrahams day, In davids day, In moses day, In jeremiahs day, In daniels day, In malachi's day. In Jesus day, And Pauls day, And today. It has always been about Christ, the promised redeemer.

You seem to think God came and gave mankind a new way to be saved. He did not. No one was saved by the old covenant. The old covenant showed how mankind can be blessed by God on earth. That was done away with. and we have been given a new covenant. So we can be blessed on earth as a restored people to God.

The way to eternal life has never changed since gen 3: 15. And will never change.

Indeed, it has been and always will be the same, which is why there really should be evidence of the protestant interpretation of this same gospel in history.

your not united yourself, Your church has a history of being split in things. again, this is not a catholic/protestant issue. YOU MAKE IT THAT WAY. A church is a church, it does not matter if it is catholic orthodox or protestant. A church is the church. There is only one gospel. If you follow the gospel. you will be saved. If you do not, you will be doomed. it does not matter what church you belong to.

But throughout the history of the Church these issues have been debated and settled by Councils, bringing us unity. Today a Catholic can pipe up all he wants about how he thinks abortion is morally permissible, but he will never change the views of the Church on such a matter. If this same issue took place in a Protestant church it could have resulted in a church split. Heck, a church in my town split over whether or not candles should be on the altar.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You, my friend, are the one who missed the point. you said: "To be a christian would be to throw 2000 years of jewish history out the door. And claim it to be false and fabricated. This is what Jesus did 2000 years after jewish religion was started." and in response I said:

"Actually no it doesn't. You believe Moses existed and parted the Red Sea, you believe David slew Goliath, you believe that Solomon built a temple."

What I was demonstrating was that Jesus never rejected the historicity of Judaism and proposed some alternate history, which is what you would have to do to be protestant.

This is really getting old.

To what point do you not understand the difference between gospel history) What get us to heaven with Christ) and regular history? That was the context of what I said. and you did not disprove what I said.

Indeed, it has been and always will be the same, which is why there really should be evidence of the protestant interpretation of this same gospel in history.

So explain to me. There was no Eucharist in the OT. There was no baptism in the OT, There was no (whatever else your church says one must do to be saved) in the OT. So how in God's name were they saved without having these instruments of salvation? And be carefull what you say. Because God makes it clear. Circumcision, Animal sacrifice, The passover meal (from whence we get the lords supper of the flesh and blood) and other "works of the law" were NEVER given as an instrument of salvation. That it did nt matter if a person did these works or not. It did not save or help save them, but was "faith working in love" through Christ.

So how could anyone who lived from adam until the start of the roman church have been saved without the instruments of salvation (sacraments) given the roman catholic church?

 

[SantoSubito]

This is really getting old.

To what point do you not understand the difference between gospel history) What get us to heaven with Christ) and regular history? That was the context of what I said. and you did not disprove what I said.

Then you didn't disprove what I said. Since you addressed a subject that I did not bring up.

So explain to me. There was no Eucharist in the OT. There was no baptism in the OT, There was no (whatever else your church says one must do to be saved) in the OT. So how in God's name were they saved without having these instruments of salvation? And be carefull what you say. Because God makes it clear. Circumcision, Animal sacrifice, The passover meal (from whence we get the lords supper of the flesh and blood) and other "works of the law" were NEVER given as an instrument of salvation. That it did nt matter if a person did these works or not. It did not save or help save them, but was "faith working in love" through Christ.

So how could anyone who lived from adam until the start of the roman church have been saved without the instruments of salvation (sacraments) given the roman catholic church?

Simple, they were saved and judged by how well they had did with what God had given them. The OT sacraments could not save them since they had no grace in them since Christ had not yet come (and thus they weren't true sacraments), but as I said before merely shadows of the true sacraments. By the way one does not need to be baptized and receive the Eucharist regularly to be saved. Those are the normative ways man is saved by God's grace, but there are extraordinary ways in which God acts to save people. But if you say you believe in Christ and forsake baptism there is no excuse.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Then you didn't disprove what I said. Since you addressed a subject that I did not bring up.

No, I brought it up. And you did not disprove what I said, All you did was run around in circles.

Simple, they were saved and judged by how well they had did with what God had given them. The OT sacraments could not save them since they had no grace in them since Christ had not yet come (and thus they weren't true sacraments), but as I said before merely shadows of the true sacraments. By the way one does not need to be baptized and receive the Eucharist regularly to be saved. Those are the normative ways man is saved by God's grace, but there are extraordinary ways in which God acts to save people. But if you say you believe in Christ and forsake baptism there is no excuse.

Simple? Sounds questionable to me, makes no sense.

question:

A perfect judicial system with moral and righteous judges. no favoritism, biases, or payouts. A judge like God would be.

A man is sentenced to death because he murdered someone. Can you name the ways that guy could be "redeemed" from that death penalty?

 

[SantoSubito]

No, I brought it up. And you did not disprove what I said, All you did was run around in circles.

Yeah, and you didn't disprove me since you brought up something different. Instead you tried to draw some vague distinction between gospel history and normal history (as if gospel history wouldn't be based in reality)




Simple? Sounds questionable to me, makes no sense.

question:

A perfect judicial system with moral and righteous judges. no favoritism, biases, or payouts. A judge like God would be.

A man is sentenced to death because he murdered someone. Can you name the ways that guy could be "redeemed" from that death penalty?[/QUOTE]

Christ could redeem him, and in all applicable cases he does. But God will also take into account the circumstance of the man. If he was a Native American that lived before the Spanish Missionaries came, then he would be judged based on how well he upheld the universal moral law that is written on all men's hearts. Those who have never heard the gospel are judged differently than those of us who have, just like a judge judges differently in a manslaughter or murder case.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yeah, and you didn't disprove me since you brought up something different. Instead you tried to draw some vague distinction between gospel history and normal history (as if gospel history wouldn't be based in reality)

No I made an observation. The jews had much history which lined up with the word of God. They also had a Gospel which apposed the word of God. Which is exactly what I see in your church. Your failure to see it, or refusal to acknowledge I have a valid point does not mean a thing.

Christ could redeem him, and in all applicable cases he does. But God will also take into account the circumstance of the man. If he was a Native American that lived before the Spanish Missionaries came, then he would be judged based on how well he upheld the universal moral law that is written on all men's hearts.

And he would be judged guilty, Because "ALL HAVE SINNED and FALL SHORT. God wrote his law in their hearts (romans 1) thus no man has excuse (Romans 1.)

Those who have never heard the gospel are judged differently than those of us who have, just like a judge judges differently in a manslaughter or murder case.

You need to study romans 1. Because roman 1 and on does not say this, It says the opposite.

Again, If a man commits murder. how can he be redeemed if he has the death penalty? Why are you walking around the answer?

 

[SantoSubito]

Yeah, and you didn't disprove me since you brought up something different. Instead you tried to draw some vague distinction between gospel history and normal history (as if gospel history wouldn't be based in reality)

No I made an observation. The jews had much history which lined up with the word of God. They also had a Gospel which apposed the word of God. Which is exactly what I see in your church. Your failure to see it, or refusal to acknowledge I have a valid point does not mean a thing.

So you explain away the 1600 years of Christian thought before the reformation by saying it's wrong according to the Bible (as interpreted by you). All right then that puts us back a square one.

And he would be judged guilty, Because "ALL HAVE SINNED and FALL SHORT. God wrote his law in their hearts (romans 1) thus no man has excuse (Romans 1.)

Exactly, God wrote the universal moral law on mens hearts. But God would not fault a man who He had not yet revealed the Gospel to for not believing in it. It is evident that God does not write the entirety of the Gospel on men's hearts, you can see this by going to secluded areas of the world and asking them if they know Jesus. What God does write on men's hearts is Commandments 4-10 and a longing for the Divine. How a man acts on and obeys these principles will determine his fate if he had not yet had the Gospel revealed to him.

You need to study romans 1. Because roman 1 and on does not say this, It says the opposite.

Again, If a man commits murder. how can he be redeemed if he has the death penalty? Why are you walking around the answer?

I said Christ could redeem him. But since the man did not know Christ he would have to satisfy the demands of justice. If the man expressed true sorrow and contrition for his sin and turned himself over for justice to be executed then perhaps Christ would have mercy on him like he had mercy on the righteous gentiles of old that He brought up from hell after His death.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So you explain away the 1600 years of Christian thought before the reformation by saying it's wrong according to the Bible (as interpreted by you). All right then that puts us back a square one.

Your right. Just like Jesus discounted how many years of Jewish tradition? (Speaking of Gospel. Not things which happened, Like david etc...)

You get the point??

Exactly, God wrote the universal moral law on mens hearts. But God would not fault a man who He had not yet revealed the Gospel to for not believing in it. It is evident that God does not write the entirety of the Gospel on men's hearts, you can see this by going to secluded areas of the world and asking them if they know Jesus. What God does write on men's hearts is Commandments 4-10 and a longing for the Divine. How a man acts on and obeys these principles will determine his fate if he had not yet had the Gospel revealed to him.

Then we might as well take the first few chapters of romans out of Gods word. Because God said these very men will have NO EXCUSE (for not understanding truth). Yet it appears your giving them an excuse and out?

I said Christ could redeem him. But since the man did not know Christ he would have to satisfy the demands of justice. If the man expressed true sorrow and contrition for his sin and turned himself over for justice to be executed then perhaps Christ would have mercy on him like he had mercy on the righteous gentiles of old that He brought up from hell after His death.

Now think about what you just said. And look at what Scripture says.

1. The penalty (demand of justice) of sin is death.
2. The only way to satisfy the demand is to pay the penalty.
3. From what I see in scripture. Only one death satisfies that demand. And that is Christ's death.

conclusion. No amount of work, repentance, penance or church tradition can satisfy the penalty of a righteous and just God. So unless Christ's death is given to your account. You are still dead in your sin. No amount of work would ever make up and satisfy a just Gods penalty (demand)

thus we have two possibilities in which someone can get to heaven.

1. Be perfect (not commit one sin his whole entire life) thus not be judged "Guilty" by the law
2. Have Christs redemptive sacrifice charged to your account. And thus your "penalty" is seen as "paid in full"

any other gospel is a false gospel and not from God.

 

[midwestbob]

Simple, they were saved and judged by how well they had did with what God had given them. The OT sacraments could not save them since they had no grace in them since Christ had not yet come (and thus they weren't true sacraments), but as I said before merely shadows of the true sacraments. By the way one does not need to be baptized and receive the Eucharist regularly to be saved. Those are the normative ways man is saved by God's grace, but there are extraordinary ways in which God acts to save people. ……

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

It doesn’t matter where on the timeline one lives the only way to be saved is to be born again. Being born again is not just for New Testament believers it was also required of the Old Testament believers. If it wasn’t then why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand this before the crucifixion?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
andofthe Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit.
Joh 3:7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest
not these things?
Joh 3:11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Regardless of our place on the timeline (pre or post crucifixion) the only way to be saved is to be born again. Pre or post crucifixion makes no difference we all drink from the same Rock.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[SantoSubito]

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

It doesn’t matter where on the timeline one lives the only way to be saved is to be born again. Being born again is not just for New Testament believers it was also required of the Old Testament believers. If it wasn’t then why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand this before the crucifixion?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
andofthe Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit.
Joh 3:7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest
not these things?
Joh 3:11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Regardless of our place on the timeline (pre or post crucifixion) the only way to be saved is to be born again. Pre or post crucifixion makes no difference we all drink from the same Rock.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Exactly born again by the grace of God in the waters of baptism.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Exactly born again by the grace of God in the waters of baptism.

See this is what I mean. Where does scripture tell us the penalty of sin is being baptized? How can baptism appease Gods wrath when it is not even the penalty imposed for sin?

 

[midwestbob]

Exactly born again by the grace of God in the waters of baptism

.
This doesn’t seem to agree with what you said earlier or have I misunderstood the message you are trying to convey?.

By the way one does not need to be baptized and receive the Eucharist regularly to be saved. Those are the normative ways man is saved by God's grace, but there are extraordinary ways in which God acts to save people. But if you say you believe in Christ and forsake baptism there is no excuse.

normative ways? Extraordinary ways?
I thought their was only one way to be saved and that was by being born again.

Christ Himself said:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So wouldn’t being born again be the only way to be saved? Is this what you mean by “normative way”? If so then what exactly are you referring to when you say “extraordinary ways”?

 

[AnandaHya]

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

It doesn’t matter where on the timeline one lives the only way to be saved is to be born again. Being born again is not just for New Testament believers it was also required of the Old Testament believers. If it wasn’t then why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand this before the crucifixion?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
andofthe Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit.
Joh 3:7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest
not these things?
Joh 3:11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Regardless of our place on the timeline (pre or post crucifixion) the only way to be saved is to be born again. Pre or post crucifixion makes no difference we all drink from the same Rock.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Yes the concept of being born again is found in the OT as well though many want to stick only to the NT . GOD does not change but people like to change His message to suit their taste.

Ezekiel 18:31
Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?

Ezekiel 11:18-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
18 And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. 19 Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them,[a] and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H02sN8VODQ8[/video]

 

[Grandpa]

.
This doesn’t seem to agree with what you said earlier or have I misunderstood the message you are trying to convey?.


normative ways? Extraordinary ways?
I thought their was only one way to be saved and that was by being born again.

Christ Himself said:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So wouldn’t being born again be the only way to be saved? Is this what you mean by “normative way”? If so then what exactly are you referring to when you say “extraordinary ways”?

Nice Post MidwestBob.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

.
This doesn’t seem to agree with what you said earlier or have I misunderstood the message you are trying to convey?.


normative ways? Extraordinary ways?
I thought their was only one way to be saved and that was by being born again.

Christ Himself said:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So wouldn’t being born again be the only way to be saved? Is this what you mean by “normative way”? If so then what exactly are you referring to when you say “extraordinary ways”?

Straight and narrow(one path) is the gate to salvation. unfortunately satan has convinced people to take the wide gate (many paths)

 

[dscherck]

Straight and narrow(one path) is the gate to salvation. unfortunately satan has convinced people to take the wide gate (many paths)

Good thing Our Lord left behind His Church to help guide us along the way.

 

[midwestbob]

Straight and narrow(one path) is the gate to salvation. unfortunately satan has convinced people to take the wide gate (many paths)

I don't see how that answers my question, shall we try again? in your earlier post you said:

Those are the normative ways man is saved by God's grace, but there are extraordinary ways in which God acts to save people..

Your statement implies there are two ways to be saved. But Jesus told us:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So exactly what is the difference between the "normative way" and the "extraordinary way"? I don't see where Scripture provides any method except being born again.

 

[AnandaHya]

Good thing Our Lord left behind His Church to help guide us along the way.

He sent His Holy Spirit

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

 

[dscherck]

He sent His Holy Spirit

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Exactly! To guide His Church! John is writing the gospel for the Church to use and educate the people. We know that the Church Christ founded is still around because He promised the very gates of hell would not prevail.

The big question is, which church out there is THE Church?