Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No wonder I liked it!Thanks , but thats not me, thats Paul,
1Cor 12:22-25
Peace!
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No wonder I liked it!Thanks , but thats not me, thats Paul,
1Cor 12:22-25
Peace!
He has always had His Body here on earth made up of regenerate believers from varying sects (basically those regenerate ones holding to the basics of Scripture).
Well, do you get your guidance and structure from the unregenerate?So your answer is no, just regenerate believers with no structure or guidance.
Well, do you get your guidance from the unregenerate?
Like I already told you, "He has always had His Body here on earth made up of regenerate believers from varying sects (basically those regenerate ones holding to the basics of Scripture)."I was not alive then. I am asking if you believe that Christ did not have a church on earth until 1500's?
Like I already told you, "He has always had His Body here on earth made up of regenerate believers from varying sects (basically those regenerate ones holding to the basics of Scripture)."
Please make your point without beating around a PC bush.
You started by saying you didn't want to offend me, then you gave me a bunch of leading questions like I was on trial under examination and now you say your question was direct and clear and pompously add, "I do not think you like the true answer.". OK, whatever. I've heard this spiel hundreds of times over.My question was direct and clear. I do not think you like the true answer. So you are are beating around the bush.
You started by saying you didn't want to offend me, then you gave me a bunch of leading questions like I was on trial under examination and now you say your question was direct and clear and pompously say, "I do not think you like the true answer." . OK, whatever. I've heard this spiel hundreds of times over.
Am I talking to a wall? I've told you 3 times Christ Jesus has always had a Church since Calvary. You keep trying to get me to deny that and say something like the Reformers started the Church. Sorry if I got you off script.Not a spiel, reality. You should know that I am not Catholic. But I do like common sense. Christ did have a Church on earth, whether you and I agree with it or not. Christianity did not start in the 1500's.
Am I talking to a wall? I've told you 3 times Christ Jesus has always had a Church since Calvary. You keep trying to get me to deny that and say something like the Reformers started the Church. Sorry if I got you off script.
Why did you start with Luther? (Hint Eastern Orthodox0.Oh contraire mon frere, you never said Church. So in the 1500's we see those that do not agree with the corruption and sins of the Church and they break away... hence the name Protest Churches. Now we have to pick one. Martin intended to reform the Catholic Church but it got away from him and the Catholic Church ended up reforming itself. So from there the Protestant churches began to fracture. The last count 32,000 denominations worldwide. So which one did you pick?
Why did you start with Luther? (Hint Eastern Orthodox0.
BTW Christ Body = Church.
Colossians 1:18 (KJV) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:24 (KJV) Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
I know the history. You started with 'Martin', so I in a sense asked 'why Martin?', when you had the Great Schism of 1054 AD with the Eastern Church. So now talk about denominations.The complete history would be rather lengthy and I did not mention the Moravian church or the Anabaptists either. So your point? Which one did you pick?
I know the history. You started with 'Martin', so I in a sense asked 'why Martin?', when you had the Great Schism of 1054 AD with the Eastern Church. So now talk about denominations. This conversation is so old and unfruitful.
I agree, but I am not going to cowtow to a 'system' that exalts Church Tradition and reason to the level of Scripture and thereby introducing strange teachings into the Body of Christ. (This holds true for any 'religious' body that downplays Scripture in any way, not just Rome).No it is not. I am Christian and I like Christians. If someone was telling you, that you were wrong and condemned your beliefs, I would come to your defense. But what we have as they say...it is what it is. There is no reason to condemn each other. And the way it is now, in the world, the wolves are circling, and it would be good for Christianity to stand together. We do not have to agree on everything it is good enough to say that we believe in Christ and His saving Grace.
I agree, but I am not going to cowtow to a 'system' that exalts Church Tradition and reason to the level of Scripture and thereby introducing strange teachings into the Body of Christ. (This holds true for any 'religious' body that downplays Scripture in any way, not just Rome).
I have never denied someone to believe what they want to believe. When I sound harsh, I am attacking their system or systematic doctrine, not the person. Evidently those that continue to question my faith, equally won't respect my right to believe what I want to believe.I could care less about Rome. And I am not asking you to cowtow to anything. Not asking you to agree with anything but your own beliefs. I am asking, as Christians, do we have to condemn each other? Is it enough to say, we do not agree? When I was overseas I fought side by side with men and women of different faiths. We fought for your right to believe what you want. Is that enough?
I see two stages in spiritual life. The first is when we depend on others and on books. If we have followed the right men and read the right books (even if they may be somewhat flawed), the time may come (God knows when) that we cease being a herb like the mustard plant and become a tree with our branches reaching up into the heavens. If and when that happens, then we understand what the holy men and holy books were trying to show us. If that doesn't happen, we remain closer to the earth and still cannot know with certainty.It doesn't say WHAT anyone would be sorry about....
Rev 21:4 only says that there will be no sorrow.
I have to disagree.
Men can get others to know...isn't this what witnessing is?
Isn't this what teaching our faith is?
The problem with steering others the same way is that we don't all come to God in the same way.
Some get to Him because they hit the bottom of the barrel and need to get out.
Some try the learned way and learn all they can about God to come to some kind of belief in Him.
Some hear from God at the strangest time of their life.
Paul said he was all things to all persons so that he could speak to them directly.
I think this is a good idea.
The basics, however, remain the same.
God exists.
We're sinners going to hell.
We need salvation.
God offers us salvation.
We accept or deny.
What difference does it make if men can observe a man's soul being restored?
There are many ways a person can notice a Christian...IF this is what you mean.
One way is by being nice to everyone.
Another way is by going to church...this is a visible sign of one's Christianity.
Probably the best one...
I see what you mean,,,but I attach no importance to what men see.
It's what God sees that counts...and I repeat again that Jesus didn't say to get baptized so that other could see something. He had other spiritual truths in mind.
Agreed.
In the early centuries, the Church did not know the fate of unbaptized babies because it had not been divinely revealed. Now, the Church commends them to the mercy and care of God. The Church has NEVER said who is in hell and who isn't.