|
|
Post by Cepha on May 13, 2009 12:39:22 GMT -5
I tried to ignore this because it is just hmmm, stupid to believe, but you keep bringing it up. No one is going to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. 1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." What does "sanctified" mean to you? But the scripture I just quoted states that an unbelieving spouse will be sanctified. Do sanctified people go to hell? sanctify 1. to make holy; set apart as sacred; consecrate.
2. to purify or free from sin: Sanctify your hearts.
3. to impart religious sanction to; render legitimate or binding: to sanctify a vow.
4. to entitle to reverence or respect.
5. to make productive of or conducive to spiritual blessing. Do you believe that Paul was teaching falsely when he said this?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 13, 2009 13:04:23 GMT -5
I tried to ignore this because it is just hmmm, stupid to believe, but you keep bringing it up. No one is going to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. 1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." What does "sanctified" mean to you? But the scripture I just quoted states that an unbelieving spouse will be sanctified. Do sanctified people go to hell? sanctify 1. to make holy; set apart as sacred; consecrate.
2. to purify or free from sin: Sanctify your hearts.
3. to impart religious sanction to; render legitimate or binding: to sanctify a vow.
4. to entitle to reverence or respect.
5. to make productive of or conducive to spiritual blessing. Do you believe that Paul was teaching falsely when he said this? Sanctify does not mean all five of those definitions at once, but or the other depending on how it is used. Now do I believe Paul was teaching falsely? No. I think you misunderstand what Paul was trying to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 13, 2009 13:07:00 GMT -5
Sanctify does not mean all five of those definitions at once, but or the other depending on how it is used. Now do I believe Paul was teaching falsely? No. I think you misunderstand what Paul was trying to say. Ok, which one of those do you think the Bible meant when Paul stated that? And, what's to misunderstand? Paul said it very clearly that believer's spouses that don't believe are sanctified. What does that mean (or doesn't mean) to you? Again, what do you personally believe sanctified mean? In your opinion, how was it used by Paul? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 13, 2009 13:12:50 GMT -5
What it doesn't mean is that they have a free ride to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. We will all have to answer to God for ourselves, and everyone that rejects Christ will go to Hell, regardless of what their spouses believe. You will not pull one passage out of context and teach something that opposes the whole of scripture.
(talk about personal interpretation)
We take scripture as a whole not piece by piece, believing whatever we want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 13, 2009 13:14:13 GMT -5
What it doesn't mean is that they have a free ride to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. We will all have to answer to God for ourselves, and everyone that rejects Christ will go to Hell, regardless of what their spouses believe. You will not pull one passage out of context and teach something that opposes the whole of scripture. (talk about personal interpretation) We take scripture as a whole not piece by piece, believing whatever we want. Yet, you cannot take that one verse "as is"? You're saying that it doesn't mean what it says? And, what is your definition of how Paul was using the word "sanctified" in that scripture? What does it mean to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 13, 2009 13:20:52 GMT -5
What it doesn't mean is that they have a free ride to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. We will all have to answer to God for ourselves, and everyone that rejects Christ will go to Hell, regardless of what their spouses believe. You will not pull one passage out of context and teach something that opposes the whole of scripture. (talk about personal interpretation) We take scripture as a whole not piece by piece, believing whatever we want. Also, if babies don't accept Jesus Christ, does this automatically mean that they reject Jesus Christ? And are they damned to hell because they didn't believe? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 13, 2009 13:37:59 GMT -5
Purposely refusing to accept Christ as you Savior, and being an infant that does not know the meaning of Savior are two very different things. We both know that. Why play word games?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 14, 2009 10:27:06 GMT -5
Purposely refusing to accept Christ as you Savior, and being an infant that does not know the meaning of Savior are two very different things. We both know that. Why play word games? Oh, so you're taking the Catholic position on that in that a person cannot formally reject Christ unless they believe in Him first then, right? Only, you're only applying that to infants implying that all adults that reject Christ automatically believe in Him first? How can someone who doesn't believe in something or someone reject it if in his/her opinion it doesn't exist? There is no culpability there. In your belief, there are two standards? One for adults? One for infants? A "double standard" for salvation? Unequal (and in being unequal, being "unjust") treatment administered by God? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 14, 2009 10:27:51 GMT -5
Oh, and what does "sanctified" as used by Paul in that quote I gave you about unbelieving spouses being saved by their believing spouse's faith mean to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 14, 2009 11:00:15 GMT -5
Purposely refusing to accept Christ as you Savior, and being an infant that does not know the meaning of Savior are two very different things. We both know that. Why play word games? Oh, so you're taking the Catholic position on that in that a person cannot formally reject Christ unless they believe in Him first then, right? Only, you're only applying that to infants implying that all adults that reject Christ automatically believe in Him first? How can someone who doesn't believe in something or someone reject it if in his/her opinion it doesn't exist? There is no culpability there. In your belief, there are two standards? One for adults? One for infants? A "double standard" for salvation? Unequal (and in being unequal, being "unjust") treatment administered by God? I will be back tomorrow, if I continue to respond to your overwhelming ignorance today you will probably ban me ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 14, 2009 11:45:28 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 14, 2009 13:10:35 GMT -5
That's why we don't feel we have to believe in a literal 1000 year reign in Rev.
But if there is a direct command, or a plain statement (like the one in 1 Cor.) then why not take it at face value?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 14, 2009 13:56:05 GMT -5
That's why we don't feel we have to believe in a literal 1000 year reign in Rev. But if there is a direct command, or a plain statement (like the one in 1 Cor.) then why not take it at face value? Not only that, according to scripture, to God, 1,000 years is like a day. When this 1000 year reign is supposed to come, is it 1000 man years? Or God years where each day in that 1000 years would equal a thousand years? I can't even begin to think of how long that would make it! And...choosing when and when not to take things literally is, well, Cafetiria Christianity. Either you believe the Bible as written, or you don't. If you do, then you have to believe that infants are damned to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 14, 2009 14:07:37 GMT -5
Oh, so you're taking the Catholic position on that in that a person cannot formally reject Christ unless they believe in Him first then, right? Only, you're only applying that to infants implying that all adults that reject Christ automatically believe in Him first? How can someone who doesn't believe in something or someone reject it if in his/her opinion it doesn't exist? There is no culpability there. In your belief, there are two standards? One for adults? One for infants? A "double standard" for salvation? Unequal (and in being unequal, being "unjust") treatment administered by God? I will be back tomorrow, if I continue to respond to your overwhelming ignorance today you will probably ban me ;D Well, you've already begun with the insults and the refusal to answer certain questions, so yeah, you're on your way to getting banned again. And why? Because when you can't respond to a question posed to you, you insult. And we don't allow that here. But, it'll be nice to reflect on all the questions you "didn't" answer. Matter of fact, I'm going to make a thread just on all the questions you "didn't" answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 14, 2009 14:19:42 GMT -5
Yeah really.
There is no where in the Bible that says infants (or mentally ill,etc) will automatically go to heaven. It is pure conjecture (which I believe, even though it isn't in the Bible)
But when you go with "Bible only" you have a big problem, because you have to insist that only those who believe "the gospel" can go to heaven, so that would exclude those that didn't. If you say babies will go to heaven, you are basing that on your own doctrine and not Bible alone. So why not just admit that the Bible must be interpreted through an authoritative source, which also means that the "Bible alone" cannot teach and explain all doctrine.
And if you admit that infants can go to heaven without a profession of faith, then why couldn't they be baptized without a profession of faith? Is baptism holier than the very face of God?
But we base our doctrine on an authority weightier than our own--the Church that Christ founded. The Bible is part of the Church, but not to be translated according the whim of individuals, or our own limited insight.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 14, 2009 14:37:52 GMT -5
Yeah really. There is no where in the Bible that says infants (or mentally ill,etc) will automatically go to heaven. It is pure conjecture (which I believe, even though it isn't in the Bible) But when you go with "Bible only" you have a big problem, because you have to insist that only those who believe "the gospel" can go to heaven, so that would exclude those that didn't. If you say babies will go to heaven, you are basing that on your own doctrine and not Bible alone. So why not just admit that the Bible must be interpreted through an authoritative source, which also means that the "Bible alone" cannot teach and explain all doctrine. And if you admit that infants can go to heaven without a profession of faith, then why couldn't they be baptized without a profession of faith? Is baptism holier than the very face of God? But we base our doctrine on an authority weightier than our own--the Church that Christ founded. The Bible is part of the Church, but not to be translated according the whim of individuals, or our own limited insight. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. teresa Bible alone refutes Bible alone because "Bible alone" is "not" in The Bible itself. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 14, 2009 23:30:23 GMT -5
I have a question, just to see if I am going crazy or still somewhat in touch with reality....
Is there anyone else here outside of cepha that thinks a person can get into Heaven solely on the fact that their spouse accepted Christ as their Savior, even if they refuse to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 15, 2009 8:59:24 GMT -5
I have a question, just to see if I am going crazy or still somewhat in touch with reality.... Is there anyone else here outside of cepha that thinks a person can get into Heaven solely on the fact that their spouse accepted Christ as their Savior, even if they refuse to? Whoever said that a person that actively and knowingly rejects Christ is saved? I didn't. Why are you lieing to misrepresent me? And I have a question for you: You said that "the truth is..." The Pope spoke out against Notre Dame and allowing Obama to speak there. I challenged you to provide the evidence since The Vatican stated on CNN that they weren't opposed to him speaking there. Why are you misrepresenting what our Pope stated? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 15, 2009 9:01:26 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and what does "sanctify" men to you as used by Paul in that Scripture where he states that the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believing spouse?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 15, 2009 14:02:57 GMT -5
I have a question, just to see if I am going crazy or still somewhat in touch with reality.... Is there anyone else here outside of cepha that thinks a person can get into Heaven solely on the fact that their spouse accepted Christ as their Savior, even if they refuse to? I do not believe this. |
|
