Secure Eternal Salvation

[Ronald Nolette]

Yup Ronald. I agree. The Protestant revolution of the 16th century has caused a lot of damage in the name of Christ.

As have all sects! As soon as man enters a chapel, it is no longer a perfect church.

The Apostles did NOT establish churches (plural). Paul did not establish a "gentile church" which was different than the churches established by the other Apostles.

Uh, Yes they did. Rome was not the center of teh church in the first 2 centuries. It was Jerusalem and then Antioch and Alexandria. The very fact that Jewish believers sought to undermine Pauls teachings show they were different understandings in teh church.

There is One Church with One teaching, and that Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that Church is where we are to take our differences when our brother sins against us....Just like Scripture says.

Yes and it is not an organization, but an organism and it is found in all sects of Christendom.

What happened is that the Apostles started new churches in different Cities and they assigned men to those cities that they had taught the truth too. ALL of those new churches, under the guidance of one elder, all taught the same thing. And if there was a difference in doctrine/practice etc among them those individual churches went to The Church to settle their differences: Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. Soooo your 'gentile church that had no one single rule over it' is a lie someone taught you!

Wrong again. The council of Jerusalem was because Paul was teaching the gentiles the Jewish believers were not practicing. After the council, most Jewish believers kept the laws of Kashu while gentiles did not. Jewish believers kept the Jewish festivals, the gentiles did not. they had different practices. Gentile churches had little to no understanding of the OT. Sorry but the church was not unified! they had unity in what are called teh fundamentals of the faith, but many differences in other things. That is just hisotry!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The vs's you quote literally says "whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." How can one eat plain old bread "unworthily" and regular old wine "unworthily" Ronald? It can only be done "unworthily" if He is in the bread/wine just like He said in Luke 22:19. Also, He told us we must eat his body and drink his blood. How do you do that Ronald?

Because it is the memorial of His death for sin! It is not just a plain meal but a consecrated meal to recall His death, not to partake of His actual body and blood! Also if you look at the 2nd century quote- that is Lutheran in the "real presence" of Jesus is there and not the RCC doctrine that the elements actually turn into His bodyu and blood.

Since you like to quote Paul how about you answer these rhetorical questions from him: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?

The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

The word "sharing" from your translation is:
κοινωνία
Transliteration
koinōnia κοινωνός (G2844)
Greek Inflections of κοινωνία κοινωνία — 8x
κοινωνίᾳ — 2x
κοινωνίαν — 7x
κοινωνίας — 3x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: fellowship (12x), communion (4x), communication (1x), distribution (1x), contribution (1x), to communicate (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse
   
   
   1. the share which one has in anything, participation
      
      
   2. intercourse, fellowship, intimacy
      
      1. the right hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office)
   3. a gift jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship
      It means we join in His DEATH AND RESURRECTION AS PAUL TAUGHT IN MANY PLACES, NOT THE BREAD AND WINE BECOME His Body AND Blood SACRIFICED ALL OVER AGAIN.

 

[GodsGrace]

Most of us speak the same language, but use it differently depending on many reasons!

When I teach, in order to differentiate between the church which biblically is only the saved, I use Christendom to say the entire external church which is comprised of saved and unsaved in all sects. but that is my way of differentiating in teaching and not some absolute.

Yes. I understood this.
I should start a thread on 1 Cor 3:8-16
I believe it's referring to ministry,,,but many believe it's referring to individual Christians.
We'll see...if you care to comment, that would be nice.
This comes to mind because you say you teach and Peter (or was it James) said that teachers will be held to a higher standard...
which is in line with 1 Cor.
(I used to teach our faith to kids between the ages of 8-13, and always felt very responsible for what I said).

Also, thanks for the seder info. I copied it and the link.

I think this is so much the O.T. looking forward to the New.
It's so significant. It was such a blessing when I first read about it.
Thanks again.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

First, the book of Revelation symbolically refers to Babylon as Rome (Rev. 16:19; 17:5; 18:2).[1]

No, it doesn't.

Second, Peter says that “Mark” is with him (1 Pet. 5:13). Since we know that Mark was with Paul at the end of his career in the mid-60s (2 Tim. 4:11), it seems likely that Peter is writing from Rome—not Babylon.

All we know is that Paul asked for Mark, whether He was able to come or not is unknown. As for Marcus, it may or not be John Mark who accompanied Paul. But Peter was married and had kids!

Third, Babylon had been long destroyed, and it wasn’t a popular empire anymore. At this period of history, Babylon was a “desolate and ruined city in Mesopotamia.”[2] Diodorus of Sicily (who wrote from 56-36 BC) states, “As for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture.”[3] Likewise Strabo (who died in 19 BC) writes, “The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say … The Great City is a great desert.”[4] Therefore, it seems unlikely that Peter would be there.

But there was a large jewish population in the sity of Babylon. True it ceased to be an empire, but still was a thriving city on the caravan routes!

According to Jewish writers many Jews fled to Babylon during teh early Roman persecutions. and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews as Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Fourth, Christians hadn’t reached Babylon at this period in history, and it’s unlikely that Peter would be there with an entire Christian community. Craig Blomberg writes, “No other ancient documents ever suggest that Christianity had reached this area this early (or that it would reach there for several centuries), and Babylon was a long way from the addressees who lived in what we would call western and central Turkey (1:1).

Jewish Christians who had been ostracized from life in Israel fled there!

Since 2 Peter is written at the very end of Peter’s life (2 Pet. 1:14), it is more likely that Peter was writing from Rome—not Babylon.

Historic proof of this please? The entire epistle is filled with Jewish language and Jewish terminology that Jews and Jewish believers would easily understand.

 

[Marymog]

All we know is that Paul asked for Mark, whether He was able to come or not is unknown. As for Marcus, it may or not be John Mark who accompanied Paul. But Peter was married and had kids!....

Peter being married and having kids didn't stop him from following Jesus around Judea for 3 years....

 

[Marymog]

No, it doesn't.



All we know is that Paul asked for Mark, whether He was able to come or not is unknown. As for Marcus, it may or not be John Mark who accompanied Paul. But Peter was married and had kids!



But there was a large jewish population in the sity of Babylon. True it ceased to be an empire, but still was a thriving city on the caravan routes!

According to Jewish writers many Jews fled to Babylon during teh early Roman persecutions. and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews as Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.



Jewish Christians who had been ostracized from life in Israel fled there!



Historic proof of this please? The entire epistle is filled with Jewish language and Jewish terminology that Jews and Jewish believers would easily understand.

Well, that's what your men have taught you....

 

[Marymog]

As have all sects! As soon as man enters a chapel, it is no longer a perfect church...

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

[Marymog]

Uh, Yes they did. Rome was not the center of teh church in the first 2 centuries. It was Jerusalem and then Antioch and Alexandria.

So if Alexandria was the "center of the church" at the end of the first two centuries why isn't it now? What happened?

 

[Marymog]

Yes and it is not an organization, but an organism and it is found in all sects of Christendom.

Your theory is not workable. If it is "found in all sects of Christendom" then which church (denomination) is the pillar and foundation of truth and which church (denomination) do we go to so that we can settle our differences since all denominations have their own "truth"?

Can you see how what your men have taught you is a lie?

 

[Marymog]

Wrong again. The council of Jerusalem was because Paul was teaching the gentiles the Jewish believers were not practicing. After the council, most Jewish believers kept the laws of Kashu while gentiles did not. Jewish believers kept the Jewish festivals, the gentiles did not. they had different practices. Gentile churches had little to no understanding of the OT. Sorry but the church was not unified! they had unity in what are called teh fundamentals of the faith, but many differences in other things. That is just hisotry!

Really? Wrong again? Hmmm......The church was not unified? Sooooo the result of the Council of Jerusalem was MORE disagreement? They didn't unify at the end of that Council? Are you being serious? Who taught you that "history"?

Historically we KNOW that the Apostles started new churches in different Cities and they assigned men to those cities that they had taught the truth too. ALL of those new churches, under the guidance of one elder, all taught the same thing. And if there was a difference in doctrine/practice etc among them those individual churches went to The Church to settle their differences: Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. There were more Councils in later centuries....That dear Ronald IS a historical fact.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Peter being married and having kids didn't stop him from following Jesus around Judea for 3 years....

Irrelavent. The issue was the Marcus in Peter is the same JohnMark who was related to Barnabbas

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, that's what your men have taught you....

If you have facutal rebuttal, I am all ears!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Makes perfect sense. Jesus did not build an organization on earth, but an organism. So there is no one right sect.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So if Alexandria was the "center of the church" at the end of the first two centuries why isn't it now? What happened?

Constantine and Rome!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Your theory is not workable. If it is "found in all sects of Christendom" then which church (denomination) is the pillar and foundation of truth and which church (denomination) do we go to so that we can settle our differences since all denominations have their own "truth"?

Can you see how what your men have taught you is a lie?

From an eutopian sense it is not workable, but it is what it is on earth.

It is the body of Christ which is the pillar, not some denomination. I am sorry it is awful sloppy for you but this is what it is in these last days. There had to be splits because Romanism refused to give up its many pagan doctrines.

People need to go to their local assembly to settle differences. When it is different sects that are "believing sects" they should act like men of Goid and meet to discuss.

But divisions were what Paul told us to expect due to human weakness, so that the tried and true can stand out. YOu think too much along th elones of organizations, where Jesus thought more along the lines of people.

Unity in fundamentals is absolute, but for the rest, it varies in degrees in importance. there are many believers whom I will gladly fellowship with even with our many differences. then there are some I cannot fewllowship with because of our differences.

 

[GodsGrace]

Makes perfect sense. Jesus did not build an organization on earth, but an organism. So there is no one right sect.

What's the difference between an organism and an organization?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Really? Wrong again? Hmmm......The church was not unified? Sooooo the result of the Council of Jerusalem was MORE disagreement? They didn't unify at the end of that Council? Are you being serious? Who taught you that "history"?

Well there was disagreement, but James rules on a few issues that the gentiles should do to be acceptable to the Jewish church. But there was still a wall of speeration between Jewish and Gentile believers on the individual level in most circles. Old prejudices die hard!

They agreed to a course of action that would make the gentiles acceptable to the Jews! How much agreement flowed down to individuals is unknown.

The fight in Galatia shows the church was not in agreement. This letter was written years after the Jerusalem Council decision.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What's the difference between an organism and an organization?

An organization is a company, business, group or even a church with its members and rules. An organism is a living entity that functions from teh command of its head.

The true church is the body of Christ who follow its head. These are made up of true believers in all denominations.

 

[GodsGrace]

An organization is a company, business, group or even a church with its members and rules. An organism is a living entity that functions from teh command of its head.

The true church is the body of Christ who follow its head. These are made up of true believers in all denominations.

OK
Agreed on definition.

I ask you this:

The organizations you mentioned function BECAUSE they have a head.

The Church which is the Body of Christ is a living entity which also functions by following/obeying the Head.

I proffer that even this organism requires an organization with a human head. For instance, in the time right after Jesus it was James, Paul, a d other Apostles and Apstlc Fathers.

I don't believe anything on this earth could function without a hierarchy. (Given the nature of we humans).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

OK
Agreed on definition.

I ask you this:

The organizations you mentioned function BECAUSE they have a head.

The Church which is the Body of Christ is a living entity which also functions by following/obeying the Head.

I proffer that even this organism requires an organization with a human head. For instance, in the time right after Jesus it was James, Paul, a d other Apostles and Apstlc Fathers.

I don't believe anything on this earth could function without a hierarchy. (Given the nature of we humans).

Well for physical structure and business, yes churches need an organization, but for rule and faith, we have all one source-Scripture. Organization is very subjective based on laws and lands and church tastes etc. but We have one head Jesus who instructs us through His Word.

so yes the organism needs organization. Especially since churches started building buildings, buying lands, summer camps, sending missionaries to other lands etc.