Search results

Now come on Dan, they are very wrong on some things but they are right on quite a bit. Those who promoted RCC spirituality has always had a hard time. Like St John of the Cross. He believed in the later Protestant version of second blessing holiness, but had a very hard time with his seniors...

They also believe in the Trinity. Not supporting them, just saying.

@Pavel Mosko Thanks for that. However, he is just agreeing with the Protestant theological concept of sanctification which todays Orthodox have no problem with. That is to say - gradual sanctification. I suppose it helps refute the wrong ideas of some who think it is sharing God's essence...

@marks I thank you for this conversation because I had never heard of the interpretation of Romans 7 you have laid out. I believe it is a new invasion of the church of a doctrine that would have been recognized as a new kind of Gnosticism and kept out previously. So many new errors these last...

You are correct marks, l believe that being born again is a new creation. A person redeemed who walks as Christ walks. The foundation, as you rightly say, is entirely different and not one that stands to reasoning in the interpretation of scripture. I know all of the scriptures and verb...

I'm not denying that there is a process to it and an ongoing sense of maintaining it through faith in the keeping of the Holy Spirit.But there is a point, usually due to a crisis, where we are shown how to overcome the flesh even in the thoughts by the power of God Almighty. I don't know how...

Paul is saying at this point, that illumination has come to him that his flesh does not serve God and is the body of the death he has presented and asks who will deliver him. The answer comes and he thanks God. The flesh, the body of sin has to be on the cross with Christ, not just Christ there...

I can see why you would be touchy about the second blessing theology as it is unanimous amongst Wesleyans, the Holiness .Movement, the early church (three blessings) and you are out on a limb with those who say that a period of suffering is required. But you are out on a limb with other things...

You say here that Paul was blameless so l assumed you were saying it was the Pharisee. I made a mistake and apologise but you were unclear, and there you go again being insulting. You just can't help it can you. What a witness to what you claim. If you do not clean up your act on my thread l...

I am enjoying this! But I am now going to read Irenaeus Against Heresies and will get back tomorrow hopefully.

You say that man must serve the law of sin in his body

Saying the spirit of man is pure and can exist in a corrupted body is Gnostic heresy.

But you say they should but can't.

IF you are risen with Christ, stop sinning.

Interpreting Romans 7. There have been two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history and which are sometimes known as the Primitive and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years, as did some of the Church Fathers and writers before Augustine...

Well well, here we have the three interpretations of Romans 7 before us. 1) @Episkopos says the Pharisee Paul 2) @marks says the normal Christian life 3 me says it is the ABnormal Christian life where a work of God is required ie Spirit baptism as a second work of grace.

OK then @marks, what do you say is going on?

The questions do have an answer., Paul is describing in chapter 6 what being in Christ means. Dead to sin, for which we have reckoned. We have to reckon it because all who come to Christ find that they are indeed not dead to sin in reality and if they really care, they will want to know how to...

He says before this: 2) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. He could not delight in the law if he was 'unsaved' not 'born again.

When he says not I, I take that to mean he does not approve of himself and what he was doing.