In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[OzSpen]

Who or what organization, in your opinion, has the authority, ability, the right too etc. etc. "test the spirits to discern whether they were from God"?

The verse to which you specifically refer is 1 John 4:1 (ESV). However 1 Thess 5:21-22 states, 'Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good'.

1 John (ESV) was written to 'my little children ... that you may not sin' (1 John 2:1 ESV). This book was written to Christian believers.When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he was writing to a church at Thessalonica.

So which authority has the ability or right to 'test the spirits to discern whether they were from God'? That's not difficult to discern. That's the responsibility of the local church.

1 Cor 12:10 (ESV) states that one of the gifts of the Spirit manifest in the church is 'the ability to distinguish between spirits';
1 Cor 14:29 (ESV) states that in the church gathering (see 1 Cor 14:26 ESV), 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said'.
Rev 2:2 (ESV), addressed to the church in Ephesus, Jesus said, ‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false'.

So, it is the role of the Spirit and Jesus in the local church to 'test the spirits'. That's what the Scripture teaches.

Oz

 

[tom55]

The verse to which you specifically refer is 1 John 4:1 (ESV). However 1 Thess 5:21-22 states, 'Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good'.

1 John (ESV) was written to 'my little children ... that you may not sin' (1 John 2:1 ESV). This book was written to Christian believers.When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he was writing to a church at Thessalonica.

So which authority has the ability or right to 'test the spirits to discern whether they were from God'? That's not difficult to discern. That's the responsibility of the local church.

1 Cor 12:10 (ESV) states that one of the gifts of the Spirit manifest in the church is 'the ability to distinguish between spirits';
1 Cor 14:29 (ESV) states that in the church gathering (see 1 Cor 14:26 ESV), 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said'.
Rev 2:2 (ESV), addressed to the church in Ephesus, Jesus said, ‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false'.

So, it is the role of the Spirit and Jesus in the local church to 'test the spirits'. That's what the Scripture teaches.

Oz

Your duckin' and diving and dodging the question.

So if my local church says the Eucharist is His body and blood and your local church says it is a symbol.....who is right??
If my local church says you have to be baptized to be saved and your church says its symbolic....who is right??

Who's "spirits" are in agreement with God and who's are anathema? Yours or mine?

 

[OzSpen]

Your duckin' and diving and dodging the question.

So if my local church says the Eucharist is His body and blood and your local church says it is a symbol.....who is right??
If my local church says you have to be baptized to be saved and your church says its symbolic....who is right??

Who's "spirits" are in agreement with God and who's are anathema? Yours or mine?

No duckin' and weavin', mate. You do the exegesis that leads to the correct exposition. Quit using contrary interpretations to try to reject the need for careful exegesis and hearing from the Spirit.

Isn't it interesting that you did not deal with the content of what I stated. You are off and running with what you came here for - to promote your contrary opinion.

I'm a serious exegete of Scripture, not one who is into contrariness.

Oz

 

[tom55]

No duckin' and weavin', mate. You do the exegesis that leads to the correct exposition. Quit using contrary interpretations to try to reject the need for careful exegesis and hearing from the Spirit.

Isn't it interesting that you did not deal with the content of what I stated. You are off and running with what you came here for - to promote your contrary opinion.

I'm a serious exegete of Scripture, not one who is into contrariness.

Oz

Four questions you refuse to answer. In case you don't remember I asked you these same questions several months ago and you refused to answer at that time also:

So if my local church says the Eucharist is His body and blood and your local church says it is a symbol.....who is right??
If my local church says you have to be baptized to be saved and your church says its symbolic....who is right??
Who's "spirits" are in agreement with God and who's are anathema? Yours or mine?

I already know why you won't answer them but I am curious if you will admit it.

 

[StanJ]

Four questions you refuse to answer. In case you don't remember I asked you these same questions several months ago and you refused to answer at that time also:

So if my local church says the Eucharist is His body and blood and your local church says it is a symbol.....who is right??
If my local church says you have to be baptized to be saved and your church says its symbolic....who is right??
Who's "spirits" are in agreement with God and who's are anathema? Yours or mine?

I already know why you won't answer them but I am curious if you will admit it.

Transubstantiation is not taught in the Bible. Jesus used it as a metaphorical or symbolic example.
Baptism does not save. Salvation is found and no other name but Jesus. Romans 10:9-11
You are wrong. There is no violence involved, you're simply wrong.

 

[tom55]

Transubstantiation is not taught in the Bible. Jesus used it as a metaphorical or symbolic example.
Baptism does not save. Salvation is found and no other name but Jesus. Romans 10:9-11
You are wrong. There is no violence involved, you're simply wrong.

I have proven you wrong before on the transubstantiation and baptism doctrine so I wont waste my time doing it again. You have been given the truth. Do with it what you will.

So now how do we know who is right about this? You or Me? How about if we do like scripture says and take it to the Church. Which Church do you choose StanJ???

 

[StanJ]

I have proven you wrong before on the transubstantiation and baptism doctrine so I wont waste my time doing it again. You have been given the truth. Do with it what you will.
So now how do we know who is right about this? You or Me? How about if we do like scripture says and take it to the Church. Which Church do you choose StanJ???

You seem to live in a world that doesn't involve reality. You have not proven me or anybody wrong here.
I know I'm right, you think you're right... there's a big difference there.

 

[OzSpen]

Four questions you refuse to answer. In case you don't remember I asked you these same questions several months ago and you refused to answer at that time also:

So if my local church says the Eucharist is His body and blood and your local church says it is a symbol.....who is right??
If my local church says you have to be baptized to be saved and your church says its symbolic....who is right??
Who's "spirits" are in agreement with God and who's are anathema? Yours or mine?

I already know why you won't answer them but I am curious if you will admit it.

This is a straw man you have erected. I've already answered you about what you do if you disagree with those false doctrines being taught in your church. You go to the elders and follow due process.

My exegesis of the relevant passages cannot conclude in support of transubstantiation or baptismal regeneration. Therefore, a church that teaches something contrary to Scripture is promoting false doctrine and another 'spirit'. That's how you determine truth from falsehood. Then go to the elders and follow due process.

Quit goading me with your kind of irrelevancy.

Oz

 

[tom55]

This is a straw man you have erected. I've already answered you about what you do if you disagree with those false doctrines being taught in your church. You go to the elders and follow due process.

My exegesis of the relevant passages cannot conclude in support of transubstantiation or baptismal regeneration. Therefore, a church that teaches something contrary to Scripture is promoting false doctrine and another 'spirit'. That's how you determine truth from falsehood. Then go to the elders and follow due process.

Quit goading me with your kind of irrelevancy.

Oz

Got it. Decide what I believe. Find a church that preaches what I believe and attend it. Once they change their doctrine (like gay marriage or allowing woman pastors or deciding that baptism is required for salvation) then approach the leaders of the church and tell them they have interpreted scripture wrong. If they don't agree with me I find another church that preaches what I believe.....Until that church starts teaching something I don't believe OR I change what I believe then I have to find another church.

Makes sense. Sounds biblical and logical.

 

[tom55]

No duckin' and weavin', mate. You do the exegesis that leads to the correct exposition. Quit using contrary interpretations to try to reject the need for careful exegesis and hearing from the Spirit.

Isn't it interesting that you did not deal with the content of what I stated. You are off and running with what you came here for - to promote your contrary opinion.

I'm a serious exegete of Scripture, not one who is into contrariness.

Oz

I have dealt with the content of what you stated. You just don't agree with it.

Are you saying that I am NOT a 'serious exegete of Scripture? You couldn't even get correct something so simple as what an Orant is and you expect me to believe you are an exegete of Scripture?? <_<

 

[tom55]

You seem to live in a world that doesn't involve reality. You have not proven me or anybody wrong here.
I know I'm right, you think you're right... there's a big difference there.

StanJ,

I know you are right also. I'm just messing with you....Love...Tom55

PS...You didn't answer my question...but I am getting used to that

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

I know you are right also. I'm just messing with you....Love...Tom55

PS...You didn't answer my question...but I am getting used to that

I tell you what, frame a question properly without all the flotsam and I'll answer you.

 

[StanJ]

Thanks to Angelina, I was wondering when this would be moved to a more appropriate place.

 

[Angelina]

Sorry it took so long... :unsure:

 

[OzSpen]

Got it. Decide what I believe. Find a church that preaches what I believe and attend it. Once they change their doctrine (like gay marriage or allowing woman pastors or deciding that baptism is required for salvation) then approach the leaders of the church and tell them they have interpreted scripture wrong. If they don't agree with me I find another church that preaches what I believe.....Until that church starts teaching something I don't believe OR I change what I believe then I have to find another church.

Makes sense. Sounds biblical and logical.

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[tom55]

Transubstantiation is not taught in the Bible. Jesus used it as a metaphorical or symbolic example.
Baptism does not save. Salvation is found and no other name but Jesus. Romans 10:9-11
You are wrong. There is no violence involved, you're simply wrong.

YOU say symbol. Jesus, Paul, men who walked with the apostles, the early Christians, the early church fathers and 2000 years of Christian beliefs/practice disagree with you........second warning on this subject.

1Peter 3:21 (baptism saves)
Mark 16:16 (baptism saves)
Luke 13:13 (repent or perish/repent or loose your salvation)
John 15:22 (if you never knew him you can still have salvation)

This is your second warning on this subject also.

Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

 

[StanJ]

YOU say symbol. Jesus, Paul, men who walked with the apostles, the early Christians, the early church fathers and 2000 years of Christian beliefs/practice disagree with you........second warning on this subject.

1Peter 3:21 (baptism saves)
Mark 16:16 (baptism saves)
Luke 13:13 (repent or perish/repent or loose your salvation)
John 15:22 (if you never knew him you can still have salvation)

This is your second warning on this subject also.

Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

I said symbolic/metaphorical.

You should know by now on this website that you can't just say something and expect to be believed giving your predisposition for overstating and equivocating so please show me exactly where Jesus or Paul or any writing in the New Testament disagrees with me.

All you do after every post, is reveal more and more of your true nature which is one of an inculcated, self-righteous Roman Catholic, and not really one who is truthfully speaking the true church.

 

[tom55]

I said symbolic/metaphorical.

You should know by now on this website that you can't just say something and expect to be believed giving your predisposition for overstating and equivocating so please show me exactly where Jesus or Paul or any writing in the New Testament disagrees with me.

All you do after every post, is reveal more and more of your true nature which is one of an inculcated, self-righteous Roman Catholic, and not really one who is truthfully speaking the true church.

[SIZE=12pt]Jesus said:[/SIZE] I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died (reference to Exodus16:4). This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever”

Paul said: I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

You can't eat/drink a symbol or a metaphor in an unworthy manner and be guilty of sinning. You can only be guilty if it IS his body/blood.

In the year 110 AD Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John): [SIZE=12pt]They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,..."[/SIZE]

All you do after every post is reveal more and more of your true nature which is one of an inculcated self-righteous Protestant and not really one who is truthfully speaking the true church.

That was your second warning.

 

[StanJ]

If you would have read 1st Corinthians 10:17, you would have seen that clearly it was talking in the metaphorical unless you actually believe that we are all one huge physical body? It is very obvious that you were so badly inculcated that you can't even use common reason and understanding about basic English grammar so at this point there really is no use in me saying anything more to you as you are not able to receive it. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[tom55]

If you would have read 1st Corinthians 10:17, you would have seen that clearly it was talking in the metaphorical unless you actually believe that we are all one huge physical body? It is very obvious that you were so badly inculcated that you can't even use common reason and understanding about basic English grammar so at this point there really is no use in me saying anything more to you as you are not able to receive it. Welcome to my ignore list.

1 Corinthians 10:15....I speak to sensible people......

Maybe this is why you have not been able to comprehend what Paul said?

BTW...You didn't even ATTEMPT to rebut what Jesus said. Why is that?