The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

BreadOfLife · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
Martin Luther was trying to convert Catholics to Sola Scriptura....inadvertently.
You should take notes from him.

I should take lessons from a guy who edited the bible and deleted 7 Books from it??
Why would I want to wind up in the same mess as YOU?

The Old Testament Canon that I have in MY Catholic Bible is the SAME one that Jesus and the NT writers learned from.
This is evident by the almost 200 references in the NT to the 7 OT Books that Luther deleted . . .

BreadOfLife · Mar 4, 2020

user said:
My apologies for assuming you were able to keep up. Clearly you were not.

Here it is again, read slowly...

The Exercise of Power and Authority

God’s name represents His power and authority, this explains the significance and importance of using Jesus' name in baptism. Baptism is part of salvation, it is for remission of sins. Jesus is the only saving name and the name in which sins are forgiven and remitted. To baptize in Jesus’ name is to baptize with His power and authority. But this does not imply that the name of Jesus should not be used. To the contrary, the proper way to act with God’s authority and exercise His power is to invoke His name. This is analogous to legal transactions then and now. A person has the power and authority to direct his bank to pay money from his account to whomever he designates. Yet the bank requires his signed name before it will honor his instruction. For someone to exercise the power of attorney for another, he must first present an appropriate document signed by the person he represents.

Ummmm, why do you keep posting this nonsense from your heretical sect over at Church of Christ International as if it were an established fact??

I've already proven your position to be false.

user · Mar 4, 2020

BreadOfLife said:
Ummmm, why do you keep posting this nonsense from your heretical sect over at Church of Christ International as if it were an established fact??

I've already proven your position to be false.

Translation: "I really stuck my foot in my mouth and haven't any reply so here is some more Jibber Jabber."

BreadOfLife · Mar 4, 2020

user said:
Translation: "I really stuck my foot in my mouth and haven't any reply so here is some more Jibber Jabber."

It's funny that no matter HOW much documented evidence I bring to the conversation - YOU guys fall FLAT on your faces and are unable to refute it.

I presented scholarly evidence regarding the phrase "in the name of" in post #229.
If that is "jibber jabber" to you - then MAYBE you should enroll in a Basic English class . . .

user · Mar 4, 2020

BreadOfLife said:
It's funny that no matter HOW much documented evidence I bring to the conversation - YOU guys fall FLAT on your faces and are unable to refute it.

I presented scholarly evidence regarding the phrase "in the name of" in post #229.
If that is "jibber jabber" to you - then MAYBE you should enroll in a Basic English class . . .

Let's have a look at your scholarly evidence in post #229...

BreadOfLife said:
Apparently, you didn’t R*E*A*D my last post. Here it is again for your edification.
Pay attention...

Jibber Jabber. Jibber jibber jabber jibber jabber jibber jibber jabber. I read Matthew 28:19 like this...

The name of my father is - Father. The name of my mother is - Mother. The name of my wife is - Wife

Yep. We are all completely edified. Thank you.

BreadOfLife · Mar 4, 2020

user said:
Let's have a look at your scholarly evidence in post #229...
Yep. We are all completely edified. Thank you.

And apparently, you didn't read it again.

Sooooo, WHAT was the Son's name - before He came down and was incarnated on earth??

user · Mar 4, 2020

BreadOfLife said:
No – “and” makes more sense because “even” is not the only option here.

“kai” can be rendered as “and”, “also”, “even” or “indeed”. “And”, “also” and “indeed” and make much more sense – and bolster the Christian position.
Your pseudo-Christian, non- Trinitarian position dies here

When Saul came to Ananias as the Lord had directed him, Ananias instructed him, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”.

Saul knew exactly what the Lord’s name was, for he had recently asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” and the Lord had replied, “I am Jesus”.

The command of Ananias shows that the name of Jesus is to be called at water baptism. The Greek verb translated “calling” here literally means “invoking.”

And, Secondly, Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events.

BreadOfLife · Mar 4, 2020

user said:
When Saul came to Ananias as the Lord had directed him, Ananias instructed him, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”.

Saul knew exactly what the Lord’s name was, for he had recently asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” and the Lord had replied, “I am Jesus”.

The command of Ananias shows that the name of Jesus is to be called at water baptism. The Greek verb translated “calling” here literally means “invoking.”

And, Secondly, Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events.

First of all - Ananias told Paul that his sins would be washed away by being Baptized - AND by calling on the name of the Lord.
He DIDN'T say that this was the BAPTISMAL formula.

Finally, unlike YOU and a few others here - Matthew understood as the scholarly evidence I quoted that "in the name of" simply means "BY THE AUTHORITY OF".

You have been linguistically horse-whipped and you can't seem to come to grips with it . . .

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
Take your pick Roger:

You serve a once microscopic sperm cell God.

Or, you serve a redo of the 1st Adam, which was made an omnipresent, quickening spirit after his God resurrected him from the dead and filled his spirit body with every bit of Himself(Col 2:9).

Creating this new Jesus(God by default).....

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

....God lighting the city THROUGH Jesus, per the Col 2:9 effect on his body. God is the light source and Jesus is the "bulb".

According to you, Jesus was a created being, and then he became God. Pray tell, how does a mere creature become God? Please explain this absurdity.

Furthermore, how does a creature become the God that created that creature? Or is the Jesus God a different God to the God that created Jesus?

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
He is made Lord on earth and made God after resurrecting.

God cannot be killed, but a lord can.

Sounds like a game of Dungeons and Dragons. You just make things up as you go along - which Scripture says a "lord" can be killed?

Can you cite one reputable theologian who supports your claim that "Lord" in Luke 1:43 doesn't refer to God?

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
The name of the son of God is "son"?

Is son your name. son?

Jesus said baptise in the name of 'the Son" - literally.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
Again, you debunk Jesus Christ.

He says that he is THE good shepherd, which leaves only bad shepherds.

He said there is only 1 shepherd, which leaves only thieves and imposters.

But, if you want his flock, so be it.

You are attempting to separate Christ from his body, which is the Church. They cannot be separated. Where you find the Church, you find Christ. Christ is the Shepherd, and so is his Church. Try and think outside your sand box, just a little.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

BreadOfLife said:
Ummmm, can you show me where the Bible makes this idiotic claim?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Apparently, Jesus was a created being, then the creature (somehow) became God - the same God that created him. Only a genius could fathom the mysterious depths of that absurdity.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Enow said:
Billy Graham did not want to be given the credit by Christians for leading others to salvation

If Billy Graham was such a good preacher, how come he never figured out that he should become a member of God’s one, true Church?

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Marymog said:
I wish it was as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved. If it was that simple the bible would be A LOT shorter....

Page 1 of the Bible: Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.
Page 2 of the Bible: The End

Simple folks like simple theology … and they still get it wrong.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Enow said:
Now that we have been reconciled to God thru Jesus Christ by believing in Him, that foundation is laid, that seal of adoption is forever

Nonsense - there are several Scriptures that imply believers can end up in Hell. You choose to ignore such Scriptures and persist in your erroneous doctrine. Nothing is sealed until after you die, when you will be judged by Christ and hopefully granted salvation.

How we live this reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ will be judged in when and how the saved believers will be resurrected as.

You use the term, "saved believers" - does that mean there are unsaved believers?

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
All Catholics have skipped Acts 2:38. along with most Protestants.

Please explain.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

That verse doesn't rule out the possibility that God can inspire the Pope to utter/write the infallible words of God, just as God inspired to the prophets and apostles to do the same.

RogerDC · Mar 4, 2020

Truther said:
Therefore to know we are in that church, we must duplicate the doctrines and experience of that church.

Please describe the doctrines of the Acts Church. Then explain why non-Catholic Christians can't agree on what those doctrines were.

Enoch111 · Mar 5, 2020

RogerDC said:
Nothing is sealed until after you die, when you will be judged by Christ and hopefully granted salvation.

Why don't you go and study what is actually in the Bible? Not what the RCC teaches. Was Zacchaeus *hopefully* saved, or most certainly saved?

And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luke 19:9)

Now kindly go and study Romans 10, then the entire epistle to the Romans (which does not even mention Peter as the first pope). And do what it says.

The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads