"Our very salvation, based on grace, hangs on the truth of our faith. God gives no grace to one without real faith and faith is made real by obedience."
OBEDIENCE OF WHAT?!
OBEDIENCE OF WHAT?!
The Blended Gospel
- Thread starter H. Richard
- Start date
-
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!
***heretoeternity said:
I did not say Paul saves anyone. But Paul's gospel of grace does for those that believe it.
***heretoeternity said:
The law condemns mankind. Grace is a free gift of salvation to all who will trust in Jesus' work on the cross, period.
What are we to do with "wolves" that enter the Church? For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you." If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. You must call a meeting of the church. I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns. So which "community of believers" do you ,FHII, choose to purge the evil and wolves from among us? Which denomination has the highest leader to fulfill what Scripture tells us to do? What is the "biblical way to run a community of believers? The Catholic way? The Mormon way? The Baptist way? The Lutheran way? A mix of all of them? You said that you "believe its happening today? Where is it happening????FHII said:
If "the leaders must be genious (genuine?) and stick to the Word' how do we know they are sticking to The Word? What do we use as a guide or anchor? Are the leaders of the churches that allow woman and gays as their pastors sticking to the word of God? They think they are. Who has the authority to tell them they aren't? I am sure the Mormons think they are sticking to The Word. Martin Luther, Calvin, the Gnostics, Zwingli and Fred Phelps thought they were sticking to The Word. Even Muhammad thought he was sticking to The Word!! Who has the authority to say that someone is or is not sticking to The Word?? Who is the "highest leader"? If you were alive in the mid 1500's do you choose Pope Leo X, Muhammad or Martin Luther as the "highest leader"? How about Joseph Smith?? Which one of them 'gets their orders from Christ'??
You make it sound like God abandoned us soon after Paul died and we no longer have the truth or the ability to call someone heretical? I find that hard to believe. Historically we do know there were heretics and they were dealt with by the Church hierarchy/leaders at that time. That Church hierarchy and leadership was built on apostolic succession. When did that apostolic succession end?
***FHII said:
Paul did not establish the churches we see today. In Paul's church no one was above the others. They may have had different titles but not to be what we see today. Show me where Paul says that only the clergy can perform rituals. The way Paul's church was to function was that some would perform certain duties to run that activity. No where do I find Paul setting up a holier than thou clergy.
As for apostles there were those that were with Paul that Paul called apostles. He even mentions a women as being an apostle. Everyone that reaches out to others with the gospel of grace is, in my opinion, an apostle but I doubt that they would think of it. There are teachers but very few are in the churches. Most of the churches teach a social/moral gospel that saves a person and only mentions Jesus' work on the cross as purchasing our salvation. There are those on this forum that prove what I am saying.
I have been reading and studying the Bible for over 70 years and according to the scriptures that would make me an elder in the church. I have read and heard jut about everything there is to read and hear. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well and He teaches thae children of God by revelation just as He taught Paul. A lot of the studies I have posted on this forum came to me in dreams that made me search the scriptures to see if they are true.
We still have the ability to call someone a "heretic" or better yet a "lunatic". However, a heretic or a lunatic wouldn't call anyone else a heretic or a lunatic. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.tom55 said:
There is no historical record of Peter ever in Rome. What apostolic succession is that? Was Yeshua present?
Apparently, your "blended gospel" isn't. "I consul thee to buy for me the gold refined in the fire."H. Richard said:
When I attend a Sunday School all that is talked about is sin with the belief that trying to keep the law is what we are supposed to do. I don't think that is the gospel of grace. As a matter of fact most all Sunday School teachers stay away from teaching the truth so that they will not offend those that do not believe as they do. Staying away from the doctrine of the cross is the acceptable thing to do. All religious people will flock to those kind of churches because they want to be under the law. It is under the law that they can pretend to be greater than others.
I go to dinner with some people in the Sunday School class I attend with my wife. The men cook for the church get together's and do work around the church and that is all they talk about. The women talk about their families. I have never heard a word from them about the gospel of grace. No mention of how Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world. I have never heard the preacher of this church preach about the shed blood of Jesus paying for all sins. --- And some wonder why I don't believe in the churches of today.
If a person can not say that Jesus has paid for all the sins of the world then they can't say they are children of God.
Rom 1:16-18 The Just Live by Faith in Jesus and not faith in themslves.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
NKJV
verse 17 seems to be overlooked by the works people. A person's works are not mentioned.
In verse 18 it should be understood that mankind does not have any righteousness before God unless he/she has been born of God. Those born of God have the righteousness of God Himself imputed to them.
I go to dinner with some people in the Sunday School class I attend with my wife. The men cook for the church get together's and do work around the church and that is all they talk about. The women talk about their families. I have never heard a word from them about the gospel of grace. No mention of how Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world. I have never heard the preacher of this church preach about the shed blood of Jesus paying for all sins. --- And some wonder why I don't believe in the churches of today.
If a person can not say that Jesus has paid for all the sins of the world then they can't say they are children of God.
Rom 1:16-18 The Just Live by Faith in Jesus and not faith in themslves.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
NKJV
verse 17 seems to be overlooked by the works people. A person's works are not mentioned.
In verse 18 it should be understood that mankind does not have any righteousness before God unless he/she has been born of God. Those born of God have the righteousness of God Himself imputed to them.
Who is "We" in the "We still have the ability to call someone a heretic...."?דוד חֵן (David) said:
There is "no historical record of Peter ever in Rome" that YOU will accept. Scholars and historians agree Peter and Paul were in Rome. Jurgens includes thirty references to this question about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his Sea at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” These early references demonstrate there is no question that the universal and very early position was that Peter definitely ended up in ROME. If the "historical evidence" of Diaonysius of Corinth (AD 170) or Irenaeus of Lyons is not good enough for you...nothing will be good enough for you. But I suppose the LIE about Peter being in Rome started about 100 years after he died?? How ridiculous!!
2Timothy 2: You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Paul taught Timothy (one generation) Timothy taught "faithful men" (second generation) and they were to "teach others" (third generation). Are you saying that 3 generations of succession recorded in scripture is not Apostolic succession? Did apostolic succession stop after the men that Timothy taught died?
Clement of Rome, who was a student of Peter, testified to Apostolic succession: "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
When did apostolic succession end???
Tom55,
Clement of Rome, who was a student of Peter, testified to Apostolic succession: "
That is untrue and an insult to Peter, if not Clement. I am sure both would claim to have been taught by Christ. Jesus states call no man your teacher but one.
Apostolic selection was by selecting the best candidates and then throwing lots with the possible exception of Paul. It is established in Acts. The Roman Catholic Church may use a similar method today for all I know though they appear more like the Roman Senate and Sanhedrin. I know less about the Greek Orthodox and other Catholic Churches.
Clement of Rome, who was a student of Peter, testified to Apostolic succession: "
That is untrue and an insult to Peter, if not Clement. I am sure both would claim to have been taught by Christ. Jesus states call no man your teacher but one.
Apostolic selection was by selecting the best candidates and then throwing lots with the possible exception of Paul. It is established in Acts. The Roman Catholic Church may use a similar method today for all I know though they appear more like the Roman Senate and Sanhedrin. I know less about the Greek Orthodox and other Catholic Churches.
My words do not disagree with his.tom55 said:
He only mentioned the position of "overseer" synonymous with bishop which is below that of apostles.
He also did not claim to be a student of Peter in that passage.
I assume the RCC considers the Cardinals equivalent to the Apostles and the Pope the most important among them.
I don't understand what you are alleging. It is well documented that historians and scholars believe, based on the historical evidence, that Clement WAS a student of Peter. Do you disagree with them??kerwin said:
I never said he was an apostle. I agree with you and historians/scholars agrees with you that he was a bishop: The Bishop of Rome.
You don't have to assume anything about what the RCC considers the Cardinals to be. They are very open about what they believe. http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/cardinal
Are you saying that Clement did not say in that letter that the Apostles are the ones who established Apostolic Succession??
When did apostolic succession end???
It is not way the disciples of Christ or those they teach would speak. Others may say it about them but it would be an insult, whether intentional or unintentional. It is attributing what is of God and of Jesus to a mere human being. It also leads to the sin of sectarianism.tom55 said:
If one looks at is as who was the instrument God used then i still doubt it.was Peter just because of the later's position. Even today the Pope teaches no one directly though he gives speeches to huge crowds and addresses large groups in other ways. The actual teaching is left to lower level priests. Giving Clement was in the true church then it is most likely he was just part of the laity until later elevated above that level. Peter traveled around as did Paul and if Clement was one of his travel companions then perhaps that would be considered teaching. It is a whole lot of speculation.
The words you quoted about overseers and servants of the church and they were low ranking members in the church mentioned in Scripture as Timothy was instructed to appoint some in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus in Titus 1. Clements words sound similar to Paul's.tom55 said:
Apostolic secession is described in Acts 1 and I do not know if it has ever ended.
The bishop of Rome would be a local office and not equivalent to the least of the apostles.
Who told you the law condemns mankind? You are thinking about the law of Moses, the 613 sacrificial, circumcision, food, etc laws...the blood of animinals could never atone for sin....Jesus blood did atone for sins, then comes repentance by following God's law, the moral law, the ten commandments...James calls it "law of love" and Apostle John says in 1st John...by following these ten commandments we show love of God, and the commandments are NOT BURDENSOME"....H. Richard said:
So you and your instructor want to rewrite the Bible, and the words of Jesus, James, and John to suit your agenda?
opcorn: If you do not know if apostolic succession has ended then it is possible it still continues. I believe it still continues because I know that God did not abandon us.kerwin said:
Historically we know from early Church writings/letters that the church leaders in Rome were the ones that the other churches turned too for instruction and direction. Rome was more than a "local office" mainly because Peter and Paul were martyred there and Peter, according to scripture, was the recognized leader of the Apostles.
Similar threads
