|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 23:44:47 GMT -5
Was? When did you stop sinning? And...where in The Bible does it say that once you are saved, you are no longer a sinner? Infant Baptism... Irenaeus " He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 23:50:52 GMT -5
Not to mention if you need them the scriptures that says that through faith in Christ we have been set free from sin, if we are still sinners, how can we also be free from sin? You were set free from the original sin and sin that came before you were saved, but after you are saved, you must continue to be free from sin (hence, working out your salvation as The Bible teaches us). If OSAS were true (once saved always saved), Christians wouldn't be judged by Jesus. They'd automatically go straight to heaven...including unrepentant sinners like Hitler, pedophiles, rapists, etc... You are set free from the sin you had at the time, not from future sin. No where does the bible say that one is set from sin "forever". |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 1, 2009 0:34:32 GMT -5
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Yes, "with men" it is impossible to be sinless. We're born sinful requiring baptism to remove that sin by accepting Jesus. This is a "work" that we must accomplish. Everything you posted states that we are to live sinlessly (an instruction), but never states that anyone did. Are you saying that a saved person who rapes a child is sinless? (and don't come back with that "well, he wasn't really saved" stuff, because the conditions for salvation are simple: faith, confession, baptism...if a person has faith in Christ, confesses that He is Lord and is Baptised, then they are saved...yet, they still sin like Paul himself admitted to it). Show me one scripture that says that once you are saved, you are sinless (because not one there said that). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 1, 2009 14:00:35 GMT -5
Watchman, I am not going to disagree with you or tell you that you are a sinner.
I don't pass any judgements on you.
However, I disagree with you that Christians never sin.
I detest every sin I have every done, and I never want to sin again. But even so, I know I'm not perfect and I won't be perfect until I see Jesus face to face.
You are totally right that a Christian MUST bear good fruit, or they aren't a Christian at all. But God is pruning all of us day by day that we can bear more fruit.
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. 19We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
(1 John 5)
Anyway, this verse says that if you do see your brother committing a "non-mortal" sin, you are to pray for them.
I agree that if someone is "openly" committing a "serious" sin and has no repentance, but yet calls himself a Christian, then we are not to associate with them. But still, I see no scripture that says we can judge who is "saved" or not, or that we have the right to judge.
I know that when I first became a Christian, there were some things that took a while for me to change. But God was and is patient with me and disciplines me because I am his daughter and He loves me. I know that as long as I love Him with all of my everything He won't let me stray from Him. But I'm not perfect yet.
8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; (Philippians 3)
Peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 1, 2009 14:41:06 GMT -5
Not to mention if you need them the scriptures that says that through faith in Christ we have been set free from sin, if we are still sinners, how can we also be free from sin? You were set free from the original sin and sin that came before you were saved, but after you are saved, you must continue to be free from sin (hence, working out your salvation as The Bible teaches us). If OSAS were true (once saved always saved), Christians wouldn't be judged by Jesus. They'd automatically go straight to heaven...including unrepentant sinners like Hitler, pedophiles, rapists, etc... You are set free from the sin you had at the time, not from future sin. No where does the bible say that one is set from sin "forever". I am whole heartedly against the false teaching of OSAS. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 1, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5
Watchman, I am not going to disagree with you or tell you that you are a sinner. I don't pass any judgements on you. However, I disagree with you that Christians never sin. There would be no disagreement there I know christians still sin. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 2, 2009 1:07:14 GMT -5
 Ignatius (disciple of John The Apostle)" They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."   |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 2, 2009 18:09:47 GMT -5
You were set free from the original sin and sin that came before you were saved, but after you are saved, you must continue to be free from sin (hence, working out your salvation as The Bible teaches us). If OSAS were true (once saved always saved), Christians wouldn't be judged by Jesus. They'd automatically go straight to heaven...including unrepentant sinners like Hitler, pedophiles, rapists, etc... You are set free from the sin you had at the time, not from future sin. No where does the bible say that one is set from sin "forever". I am whole heartedly against the false teaching of OSAS. AMEN! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 2, 2009 20:43:04 GMT -5
I am whole heartedly against the false teaching of OSAS. AMEN! ;D So, he's against OSAS, he believes that The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus created (since it's what Irenaeus taught) and he accepts the Deuterocanonical Books (which are full of The Catholic Church's teachings which Anti-Catholics call "man-made"). What the heck is keeping this boy out of The Catholic Church besides his pride?  He must still be "in" shock after seeing his beloved Irenaeus listing The Popes in his teachings. Now, if instead of just repeating what he's been taught by Anti-Catholics he'd actually do some reasearch of his own, he would've known who The Popes that Ireneaus was listing were... ...The Leaders of The Catholic Church as it is known today that Ireneaus himself defends and defines The Holy Eucharist for. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 7:54:55 GMT -5
Hmmm...I wonder. Now that it's known that Ireneaus was Catholic, will Ireneaus be determined to "not" be worthy of being trusted anymore too (along with The Church he defended and help develop)? A person "can't" be Anti-Catholic and still listen to The Church Fathers. It's impossible. They'd have to pick and choose what they want to believe out of their teachings. Heck, you can't even trust history if one is an Anti-Catholic. You'd have to completely abandon reason (secularly speaking) to be an Anti-Catholic.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 12:39:40 GMT -5
#1 I am against OSAS
#2 There is a difference between the ''catholic'' or universal church, and what you know as catholicism.
#3 I have never argued against the Eucharist, you or Teresa cannot understand that I am not opposed to it.
#4 There is too much false doctrine within the RCC for me to ever consider converting from Christ to religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 12:58:11 GMT -5
#2 There is a difference between the ''catholic'' or universal church, and what you know as catholicism. catholic –adjective 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church. www.Dictionary.comSo, Catholicism literally meets all those criteria.That is, in the "real" world. I can't speak about what your "personal interpretation" of the word is. No, you just don't believe "in" it because The Catholic (universal) Church is the only Church that practices this Christian Ritual. You mean too much information that "you personally" think is false. Meanwhile, The Church Fathers that you claim to believe in who developed our beliefs are in agreement with us. And, there's nothing "wrong" with religion...matter of fact, Saint Paul DEFENDS religion and says that people who aren't religious will NOT get into heaven. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christirreligion –noun 1. lack of religion. 2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety. See that Watchman? YOU'RE irreligious because you show "hostility or indifference to religion". YOU'RE exactly who Saint Paul was talking about in that scripture. You're so backwards...you "renounce" religion. Don't you read The Bible WMan? Jesus Christ Himself was a "religious" man. Not only was He a member of a "religion", but He was a Priest in that "religion". Was he wrong?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 13:17:42 GMT -5
Hmmm, let's see what your "beloved" Irenaeus says about this matter:“ Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church,
call in question the knowledge of the holy Priests,
not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man,
even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).  Wow! You got the Church Father you believe in against you, you have Saint Paul against you and you have The Catholic Church against you.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 16:53:30 GMT -5
#2 There is a difference between the ''catholic'' or universal church, and what you know as catholicism. catholic –adjective 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church. www.Dictionary.comSo, Catholicism literally meets all those criteria.That is, in the "real" world. I can't speak about what your "personal interpretation" of the word is. If this is your definition of Catholicism, it sounds a lot like protestantism, as far as this definition (although I am not protestant) I would be a member of this Church. However the RCC I will never be a member of. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 16:56:21 GMT -5
#2 There is a difference between the ''catholic'' or universal church, and what you know as catholicism. catholic –adjective 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church. www.Dictionary.comSo, Catholicism literally meets all those criteria.That is, in the "real" world. I can't speak about what your "personal interpretation" of the word is. No, you just don't believe "in" it because The Catholic (universal) Church is the only Church that practices this Christian Ritual. The definition you just gave of Catholicism would include the RCC as well as all protestant denomination so there are many Catholic people who do not believe in the Eucharist as you do, but I am not one of them I do take scripture literally, and you cannot claim because i do not agree with the RCC or am a member of the RCC that I do not believe in the Eucharist. That is just stupid to say. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 17:00:14 GMT -5
You mean too much information that "you personally" think is false. No i meant what I said there is too many false teaching within the RCC for me to ever convert. There is too many teaching that directly oppose scripture. And, there's nothing "wrong" with religion...matter of fact, Saint Paul DEFENDS religion and says that people who aren't religious will NOT get into heaven. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christirreligion –noun 1. lack of religion. 2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety. See that Watchman? YOU'RE irreligious because you show "hostility or indifference to religion". YOU'RE exactly who Saint Paul was talking about in that scripture. You're so backwards...you "renounce" religion. Don't you read The Bible WMan? Jesus Christ Himself was a "religious" man. Not only was He a member of a "religion", but He was a Priest in that "religion". Was he wrong? I hate mans religion just as Christ hated it, and I will continue to follow Christ and use Him as my example. If you have a problem with that then check your heart. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 17:02:43 GMT -5
Hmmm, let's see what your "beloved" Irenaeus says about this matter:“ Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church,
call in question the knowledge of the holy Priests,
not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man,
even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180). Wow! You got the Church Father you believe in against you, you have Saint Paul against you and you have The Catholic Church against you. Actually you twist their words, there was no RCC when this statement was made. I am not against the Church of God nor are they against me. I am against the man made system of religion that you worship, and if they were alive when the truth began to be perverted they would have rose up against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 18:27:02 GMT -5
Actually you twist their words, there was no RCC when this statement was made. I twist their words? Really? They literally said that the Church's foundation was layed "in" Rome. They said it was Catholic (universal). And they literally called it The Church. How can I twist that? They were talking about a universal Church that was "in" Rome. The Roman Catholic Church! But tell you what...Let me just quote Irenaeus stating that The Catholic Church was founded "in" Rome: Irenaeus"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]). "[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180) Yes you and they are. The Universal Christian Church is The Church of God and you "are" against it and what did Jesus say about those against The Church founded by The Apostles? That if you were against them, you were also against God. Funny, but The Church I go to is The Catholic Church. How can you say that it is man-made when it was made by Jesus? Even the rules that The Church establishes aren't "man-made", but are made by Priests and as anybody who reads The Holy Bible would know, Jesus separates Priests from normal men literally stating that a person is not tell any man when they are healed by Him, but are to show themselves to a Priest and to do what The Priest tells them to do. You do know this right? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 18:38:09 GMT -5
No i meant what I said there is too many false teaching within the RCC for me to ever convert. There is too many teaching that directly oppose scripture. How do you know that when you "personally interpret" scripture? Since you don't have a "church" teaching you scripture, you have to rely on your own personal interpretation of it, so how do you know that it's right? See, we don't have those issues you have. We know it's right because The Holy Bible talks about The Church. You? You say you believe in The Bible, yet don't believe it when it talks about The Church as a teaching institution and call it man's creation. Ok, so, if The Catholic Church of today "isn't" the one spoken of in The Bible, why did God use it to create The Bible then? You do know that you're reading a product of The Catholic Church when you read The Bible. You once said that God uses evil to make good, but Jesus contradicts this when He said that you can judge a tree by the fruit it bears...well, The Catholic Church bore The Holy Bible. What does that say about it? (Oh, and by the way, Jesus said that no good can come from anything that is evil so you are wrong there too) I hate mans religion just as Christ hated it, and I will continue to follow Christ and use Him as my example. If you have a problem with that then check your heart. Well, you need to check out the scriptures brother, because Christ defended His religion (which you call man's religion)...here, Christ separates what they do from what they teach and tells His own disciples to "obey" what they teach because they have the authority to teach it religiously: Matthew 23 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. If Jesus' religion was wrong because it was man made (like you say), why was Jesus a Priest in that man made religion? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 18:50:36 GMT -5
Matthew 23 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. If Jesus' religion was wrong because it was man made (like you say), why was Jesus a Priest in that man made religion? Judaism was created by God not man. |
|
