| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| heavenlysecrets |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 16:20:59
Hilaire Belloc, in his book on Luther writes about his attempt to disprove the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Luther found Aquinas extremely difficult to study, with all the legalisms and technicalities on how God is present, where He is present, does He go over, around, or through the Host, when exactly does the Holy Spirit come upon the Gifts and make them Holy, etc.. Of course one can understand his frustration(anyone here ever tried to read Thomistic Scholasticism)? Months later he simply declared that Aquinas was wrong. Aquinas never should have assumed that God works through legalisms in the Sacraments. Jesus said, "This is My Body, not "This will become My Body." "The priest has no power to change it, He is always present." Thus came what Lutherans call Sacramental Union or "Consubstantiation. It would seem that this idea of imputed righteousness came about in a similar way. Try as I might, I cannot figure out the origin of this concept. While Luther may not have been the originator he was certainly an adherent, as it fit hand-in hand with his "faith alone" doctrine. And yes, I am familiar with Romans 4:3 but that is different. Why can't non-Catholic Christians accept spiritual growth as a work in progress instead of this "Zap!" "I'm saved" mentality? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 09/15/2012 : 18:13:48
No. I have said nothing that goes against the Bible.
But you did. And you have yet to made amends for it.
You have refused to deal with the verses I gave you that prove that you are wrong.
I know that you won't become a Catholic. Your heart has been hardened.
I warned you before, that when a Christian stops feeling God's call to repentance when he or she sins, that means that God has let him or her go.
I feel sorry for you, but there is nothing more than I can do. I knew a long time ago that this was the case, but I thought I would try to reach you anyways.
I will continue to respond where it may benefit others, but I do not feel that I can do any more for you.
As for Wommack, he will answer to God for what he has done. |
| evangelist |
Posted - 09/15/2012 : 16:22:48
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
I never said that I was unsaved. I never said that I renounced Jesus. I did not even label myself as a sinner.
All I did was put a prayer in my signature block to God where I confessed to being a sinner (having committed sins after coming to Christ) and asked His forgiveness.
If your gospel were true, then I would simply be mistaken and that I would not be a "sinner" since all my sins were automatically forgiven and not in need of repentance.
So. YES, you are the one who has judged my born again status to be REVOKED. YOU are the one who judges me DAMNED TO HELL, when my only crime was doing what the Bible told me to do.
YOU are the one who lied to me and said I should have the BIBLE as my final authority, and yet every time I DO what the BIBLE SAYS, YOU say I am damned for it.
Sorry, but your not so good gospel has too many legalisms for me. I will stick with the straight and easy Gospel of Christ, not your version which damns to Hell everyone who doesn't understand Andrew Wommacks nonsacred writings.
Wommack and myself are not Catholics and never be one, and the fact that you say you are against sola scripture is proof from your confession that the bible is not your final authority , only your churchy!
So are you the righteous of Christ now or are you lieing again like G4 always claim as well?
You say you believe in eternal redemption but everytime you sin you say your on your way to a hell if you don't get God to forgive you of that sin so that is called a momentary redemption not an eternal one!
Sorry and sad , but your church from rome preaches another doctrine against the bible gospel and that is the truth either you like it or not!
If you believed the gospel and you are born again and saved , there is no way you can believe you are going to another pit stop or another place to get clean again by some other source in a purgatory myth!
The gospel include the impartation of the imputed righteousness you can't earn or work for or get by obedience or disobedience it is a gift given to you as you are a born again Christian!
one love |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 09/15/2012 : 10:15:30
I never said that I was unsaved. I never said that I renounced Jesus. I did not even label myself as a sinner.
All I did was put a prayer in my signature block to God where I confessed to being a sinner (having committed sins after coming to Christ) and asked His forgiveness.
If your gospel were true, then I would simply be mistaken and that I would not be a "sinner" since all my sins were automatically forgiven and not in need of repentance.
So. YES, you are the one who has judged my born again status to be REVOKED. YOU are the one who judges me DAMNED TO HELL, when my only crime was doing what the Bible told me to do.
YOU are the one who lied to me and said I should have the BIBLE as my final authority, and yet every time I DO what the BIBLE SAYS, YOU say I am damned for it.
Sorry, but your not so good gospel has too many legalisms for me. I will stick with the straight and easy Gospel of Christ, not your version which damns to Hell everyone who doesn't understand Andrew Wommacks nonsacred writings. |
| evangelist |
Posted - 09/15/2012 : 08:22:56
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
That is not what you told me and all the other Catholics on this forum.
We never renounced Jesus and yet you declared us all damned to hell.
NO1 I have not done that you damned yourself to hell by your own confession you are not saved now and still and rotten , unclean , unrighteous sinner!
i am going by your catholic statements on the matter !
one love |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 09/13/2012 : 21:20:19
That is not what you told me and all the other Catholics on this forum.
We never renounced Jesus and yet you declared us all damned to hell. |
| evangelist |
Posted - 09/13/2012 : 19:44:43
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
Are you assuming that righteous is permanent and that it grants a soul eternal salvation?
If so, that assumption is unbiblical.
It can be void when a person renounce Jesus or reject the death burial and resurrection of Christ then they are lost so that is not a permanent salvation, but for anyone who didn't renounce Jesus as thier Lord at any time has eternal redemption and salvation!
one love |
| bwellmysoul |
Posted - 09/12/2012 : 08:55:27
Are you assuming that righteous is permanent and that it grants a soul eternal salvation?
If so, that assumption is unbiblical. |
| evangelist |
Posted - 09/12/2012 : 08:22:18
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
A gift is given.
But, it also must be accepted.
Received in the spirit in which it was given.
Opened.
Used appropriately.
Cared for.
Cherished.
If not, the gift is "pearls to pigs", trompled underfoot, and made into trash that holds no value or worth.
YES! that is expected unto us to be thankful of that gift but it is our choice to do what we want with it, and show the giver our thankfulnesss in taking care of it and if not the giver will not take that gift away, but we can throw it away or destroy it, that is each their own!
What we have which is stated in Roman 4 is really more than any gift any human can give!
Also the impartation of righteous on us and in us is not an Idea it is a promise and covevnat from God and is biblical Romans 4 and 5 explain this in detail!
one love |
| bwellmysoul |
Posted - 09/12/2012 : 06:24:06
A gift is given.
But, it also must be accepted.
Received in the spirit in which it was given.
Opened.
Used appropriately.
Cared for.
Cherished.
If not, the gift is "pearls to pigs", trompled underfoot, and made into trash that holds no value or worth. |
| evangelist |
Posted - 09/12/2012 : 02:32:42
quote:
Originally posted by Kamati
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
I guess you can't understand righteousness as a gift in Romans 5 because you don't know what is the meaning of the grace gift, and that can only make you based on works and self performance and merits and you need alot of point to earn before boasting about any catholic righteousness!
Here comes some questions directed at evangelist:
what must I do to receive righteouness as gift spoken of in Romans 5?
If I have to do nothing to receive it, why is it only given to Evangelist's kind; what did you do to receive it?
If I have to do something, what is that something?
If you say all I need is faith, then what do I have to do to have faith?
[Simple question for a Catholic but they may prove to be too tough for confused Fundamentalist]
For both question you need to just believe that the answer!
meaning of believe:
3.[verb] be confident about something; "I believe that he will come back from the war"
be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
one love |
| Kamati |
Posted - 08/22/2012 : 23:55:26
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
I guess you can't understand righteousness as a gift in Romans 5 because you don't know what is the meaning of the grace gift, and that can only make you based on works and self performance and merits and you need alot of point to earn before boasting about any catholic righteousness!
Here comes some questions directed at evangelist:
what must I do to receive righteouness as gift spoken of in Romans 5?
If I have to do nothing to receive it, why is it only given to Evangelist's kind; what did you do to receive it?
If I have to do something, what is that something?
If you say all I need is faith, then what do I have to do to have faith?
[Simple question for a Catholic but they may prove to be too tough for confused Fundamentalist] |
| bwellmysoul |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 09:35:07
St. Paul said that Christians are capable of making a personal decision - through their behaviors - to loose the righteousness which Christ has given us in Baptism.
(Which in many protestantism - Christ's sanctifying grace has been gutted from baptism - making it only a symbol.)
Cleflo Dollar couches acknowledgement-of-sin by calling it "walking in faith."
|
| evangelist |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 02:53:22
http://mediasuite.multicastmedia.com/playerJS.php?v=v61p4iam
one love |
| evangelist |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 00:43:38
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Evan,
It actually included a link to a study that looked at every instance of logizomai and its conjugates in scripture. It also made references to many other passages of scripture. It also looked at tons of early church writings that refer to scripture. Try paying attention before you type next time.
If scripture consistently shows that there is no precedence (etymologically, contextually or historically) for 'logizomai' meaning placing a label on something that has no basis in objective reality, then the Protestant concept of imputed forensic righteousness is indeed legal fiction and remains an invention by a scrupulous man who refused to trust in God's forgiveness (Luther). That's right. According to this philosophy, God decided to hide what it meant to be justified for 1500 years until a German monk just happened to discover it.
Romans 5:19 says many will be made righteous, not stamped as righteous. This exposes your very limited view of grace as akin to welfare.
In 2Cor 5:21, you need to read the verses that preceeded this, because otherwise Paul is just loosing his train of thougt. He was previously speaking about his ministry of reconciliation and exhorted Christians to be reconciled to God.
Jesus did not become sin in the literal sense. He was a offering for sin (Romans 8:3), just as the lamb in the OT. He never belonged to the devil through sin. If He did, he was not God and the Trinity ceased to exist.
This idea that Jesus went to hell and suffered it's eternal torments is another invention of the 16th century by those who make Christ a sinner and make God the Father unjust in punishing an innocent man.
Also notice that it says that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. Again, speaking to Christians he is speaking of a process, present tense subjunctive - that we might become the righteousness of God. Apparently, they were not yet fully the righteousness of God. Paul includes himself by using we.
Where is the idea of one time legal, forensic, mysterious fictitous transfer of righteousness for sin in either of these passages. They both speak of ongoing realities IN CHRIST.
This is probably the biggest of the flaws in Protestant soteriology. It is ironic that you speak of scripture as your final authority (unbiblical), yet appeal to an unbiblical definition for a biblical word (logizomai) as the central proof.
I guess you can't understand righteousness as a gift in Romans 5 because you don't know what is the meaning of the grace gift, and that can only make you based on works and self performance and merits and you need alot of point to earn before boasting about any catholic righteousness !
Sad!
one love |
| jdubya |
Posted - 08/03/2012 : 14:23:27
Evan,
It actually included a link to a study that looked at every instance of logizomai and its conjugates in scripture. It also made references to many other passages of scripture. It also looked at tons of early church writings that refer to scripture. Try paying attention before you type next time.
If scripture consistently shows that there is no precedence (etymologically, contextually or historically) for 'logizomai' meaning placing a label on something that has no basis in objective reality, then the Protestant concept of imputed forensic righteousness is indeed legal fiction and remains an invention by a scrupulous man who refused to trust in God's forgiveness (Luther). That's right. According to this philosophy, God decided to hide what it meant to be justified for 1500 years until a German monk just happened to discover it.
Romans 5:19 says many will be made righteous, not stamped as righteous. This exposes your very limited view of grace as akin to welfare.
In 2Cor 5:21, you need to read the verses that preceeded this, because otherwise Paul is just loosing his train of thougt. He was previously speaking about his ministry of reconciliation and exhorted Christians to be reconciled to God.
Jesus did not become sin in the literal sense. He was a offering for sin (Romans 8:3), just as the lamb in the OT. He never belonged to the devil through sin. If He did, he was not God and the Trinity ceased to exist.
This idea that Jesus went to hell and suffered it's eternal torments is another invention of the 16th century by those who make Christ a sinner and make God the Father unjust in punishing an innocent man.
Also notice that it says that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. Again, speaking to Christians he is speaking of a process, present tense subjunctive - that we might become the righteousness of God. Apparently, they were not yet fully the righteousness of God. Paul includes himself by using we.
Where is the idea of one time legal, forensic, mysterious fictitous transfer of righteousness for sin in either of these passages. They both speak of ongoing realities IN CHRIST.
This is probably the biggest of the flaws in Protestant soteriology. It is ironic that you speak of scripture as your final authority (unbiblical), yet appeal to an unbiblical definition for a biblical word (logizomai) as the central proof.
|
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS