How to walk in the Spirit.

[Guojing]

No.
I said I believe that Jesus died for His people, according to Matthew 1.
I said I believe that Jesus raised on the third day.
I said that "raised for justification" isn't what the Kingdom Gospel teaches.
In fact, I believe the purpose of Jesus' Resurrection is the Resurrection of Life itself.

Therefore, I believe that "faith without works is dead."
If you say you believe your father when he tells you to buy a truck, but you go out and buy a sports-car, do you really believe your father?
James is right when he says "I will show you my faith by my works."
One parable makes this very clear, where Jesus says... the son who said he wouldn't go work in the vineyard but did go later, and the other son said he would go but never showed up... that the first son was righteous. The fields are ripe for harvest, but there are few workers in the vineyard.

I guess the really strange thing about all of this is that so many grace gospel gentiles don't believe what Paul told them in Galatians 2:7-9. You wouldn't expect this to be the case, but one of the people here has actually tried to make the case that I dismiss Paul's ministry... when that person is the one who doesn't believe Paul. It's almost comical really.

I see, if you answer is no, in that case, you are dismissing Paul's gospel.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You don't understand how it works. The church has always used Scripture, as well as Tradition, in supporting her positions or teachings. But in a forum such as this Tradition is generally not accepted-though it is by some, usually in a qualified sense however. In any case we use Scripture much more often in a non-Catholic setting-because everyone at least agrees on it as an authoritative source of divine revelation.

But Tradition and Scripture complement each other and Tradition often plays its role in upholding certain understandings of the practice of the faith while shining light on the Scriptural understanding. For example, Protestants have argued about baptismal regeneration for eons now, with some supporting it while others reject it as legalistic. For the ancient churches, however, this matter has never even been controversial-it was settled at the beginning. Jesus said to do it and they did it, with the simple understanding that God used that moment to wash us and initiate a new life in us, as we approached the waters of baptism in faith.

I don't understand how it works because it's really quite complected, isn't it?

Baptism isn't the issue. Whether or not baptism keeps you out of hell is the issue. Tradition also involves a lot of things Jesus never said to do. Traditional rituals that developed over a long period of time, rather than in practice from day one. I have wonder if Paul was put into a time machine and sent to a 5th century Holy Roman Empire cathedral, what he would think of it and all the changes that had taken place.

 

[fhansen]

Baptism isn't the issue. Whether or not baptism keeps you out of hell is the issue.

Well, yes, that what baptismal regeneration means-and why it's an important matter-because its involves salvation. So, based on Scripture alone, some dismiss this potentially critical soteriological matter, and the historical understanding of the church, while others embrace it.

I have wonder if Paul was put into a time machine and sent to a 5th century Holy Roman Empire cathedral, what he would think of it and all the changes that had taken place.

Personally I think he'd see a lot more that's familiar to him in the general format, with the gospel readings and the centrality of partaking of the body and blood, then he would in any modern day evangelical church which would give a whole new meaning to the word "foreign". But, of course, everyone knows what the early church was like-and how it should or shouldn't have evolved.

 

[fhansen]

I don't understand how it works because it's really quite complected, isn't it?

Not so much. It just means that, just as we as individuals have a lived experience-and traditions that impact our lives, so does the church. This is how we do things; this is what we've believed and practiced since time immemorial.

 

[Hmm]

the doctrine of infallibility only guarantees that no error will enter church teachings on faith and morals for the purpose of the salvation of man.

The main text that's quoted to support this doctrine is this bolded part of Matthew 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

When I read this, it seems to be more a promise that the church will survive - not be completely destroyed - rather than saying that it will be kept error free. I don't see how the word ”prevail” or the alternative translation of ”be overcome” means ”infallible” And surely this is what's happened. The church has survived but can anyone really say it has never got it wrong in the past or today. I know there's disagreement about what actually constitutes the church but still the point remains.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Well, yes, that what baptismal regeneration means-and why it's an important matter-because its involves salvation. So, based on Scripture alone, some dismiss this potentially critical soteriological matter, and the historical understanding of the church, while others embrace it.

As far as I know all the mainline churches baptize. I think some don't do infant baptism because scripture says to "repent and be baptized" and an infant can't really repent. Like with sanctification before justification, it seems baptism before repentance is putting the cart before the horse. Roman Catholic pours water over the head, Eastern Orthodox does full emersion.

Personally I think he'd see a lot more that's familiar to him in the general format, with the gospel readings and the centrality of partaking of the body and blood, then he would in any modern day evangelical church which would give a whole new meaning to the word "foreign". But, of course, everyone knows what the early church was like-and how it should or shouldn't have evolved.

I mean all the other stuff that was added in. Even though I said 5th century, I was thinking more along the lines of cathedrals like St. Peter's Basilica, with a Pope sitting on a golden throne being called Holy Father. We do know what the early church was like from way it was described both in the Bible and through historical sources. And that it changed a lot over time. And even in Paul's time there were divisions. Certainly the seven early churches John wrote to in Revelation weren't on equal footing.

• Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7): known for having labored hard and not fainted, and separating themselves from the wicked; admonished for having forsaken its first love (2:4)
• Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11): admired for its tribulation and poverty; forecast to suffer persecution (2:10)
• Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17): located where 'Satan's seat' is; needs to repent of allowing false teachers (2:16)
• Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29): known for its charity, whose "latter works are greater than the former"; tolerates the teachings of a false prophetess (2:20)
• Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6): admonished for - in contrast to its good reputation - being dead; cautioned to fortify itself and return to God through repentance (3:2-3)
• Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13): known as steadfast in faith, keeping God's word and enduring patiently (3:10)
• Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22): called lukewarm and insipid (3:16)

 

[Ceallaigh]

Not so much. It just means that, just as we as individuals have a lived experience-and traditions that impact our lives, so does the church. This is how we do things; this is what we've believed and practiced since time immemorial.

The veneration of Mary started in the 4th century. Lighting candles for the dead started in the 4th-5th century. Cardinals came about in the 8th century. Holy water started in the 9th century. Vernation of saints started in the 10th century. Confessing to a priest started in the 11th century. The belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist started in the 12th century. Roseries started in the 13th century. That's just the few things I know of off the top of my head and looked up.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The main text that's quoted to support this doctrine is this bolded part of Matthew 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

When I read this, it seems to be more a promise that the church will survive - not be completely destroyed - rather than saying that it will be kept error free. I don't see how the word ”prevail” or the alternative translation of ”be overcome” means ”infallible” And surely this is what's happened. The church has survived but can anyone really say it has never got it wrong in the past or today. I know there's disagreement about what actually constitutes the church but still the point remains.

I think of the Church as the Body of Christ. That's why I have Christian in my profile. As long as Christ is being preached, I'll attend, no matter what denomination it is. I feel at home in any church that preaches Christ. When I moved to the town I live in now, I saw there were many church buildings. I prayed to find one where the main emphasis was Christ and how to be a better Christian, and that's what I found. It didn't make any difference to me what denomination it is. I'm with brothers and sisters who love the Lord and each other. That's all that matters to me.

 

[Sidon]

Are you trying to insert Paul into that verse?

Paul is the author of the doctrine of "justification by Faith".

john 3:16 is HOW the Justification is applied.

"that whosoever = BELIEVES"...

"faith is counted AS Righteousness".

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The main text that's quoted to support this doctrine is this bolded part of Matthew 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

When I read this, it seems to be more a promise that the church will survive - not be completely destroyed - rather than saying that it will be kept error free. I don't see how the word ”prevail” or the alternative translation of ”be overcome” means ”infallible” And surely this is what's happened. The church has survived but can anyone really say it has never got it wrong in the past or today. I know there's disagreement about what actually constitutes the church but still the point remains.

There has always been a remnant of God's church. It's not the most popular path though according to scriptures and the bible clearly tells us the characteristics of God's church:

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Most churches now teach you do not need to keep God's commandments, but this is not coming from God.

 

[Sidon]

Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.

And Jesus fulfilled them.
He kept the law. He lived a sinless life.
This is why God accepted HIS Sacrifice on YOUR behalf, as you didnt keep the law or commandments.
So, Christ is YOUR Justification, and YOUR Redemption.

God accepts what Christ did, on your behalf, to give you "the gift of Salvation".

You dont earn this, as you are already a sinner.
Christ earned it for you, and God gives you "righteousness" based on the finished work of Jesus.

 

[Sidon]

There has always been a remnant of God's church.

God's "church" is the 'body of Christ".
This is every born again believer.

 

[Sidon]

Then it's a good thing I don't scare easily, isn't it. Because according to the Bible itself, the Greek

You dont read or understand Greek.

Let go of the pretending.

Thx.

 

[Sidon]

Which proves, yet again, that the two sets of house-laws are mutually exclusive.
You can't keep one set of house-laws without breaking the other set.

Salvation is not related to law or commandments.
Salvation is Jesus Himself. John 14:6

 

[Sidon]

BTW, I never use the term "time of the Gentiles"...

Paul is the "apostle TO the Gentiles", in the "time of the Gentiles".
Read Acts 28, the last 10 verses.
Note that Paul is again talking to unsaved Hebrews, same as in Hebrews 10, and this time he tells them that He's going to the "gentiles".

 

[SabbathBlessings]

God's "church" is the 'body of Christ".
This is every born again believer.

Are you disagreeing with John? It appears there may be some more criteria.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Sidon]

Why on earth don't you believe that your apostle to the gentiles has it covered so that you don't have to keep running off to Peter's stewardship

In 2nd Peter, He said that Paul's letters, that he had in his hand, were equal to the "Torah".
That is an apostle, stating that another apostle's letters, are equal to His BIBLE (Torah).
Paul's letters became most of the New Testament.

Keep in mind that Paul was not one of the original 12.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Salvation is not related to law or commandments.
Salvation is Jesus Himself. John 14:6

It's related to the righteous judgement of our Savior.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Salvation is not related to law or commandments.
Salvation is Jesus Himself. John 14:6

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

 

[Guojing]

Paul is the author of the doctrine of "justification by Faith".

john 3:16 is HOW the Justification is applied.

"that whosoever = BELIEVES"...

"faith is counted AS Righteousness".

John 3:16 is not about the cross, you are likely to have listened to billy graham to believe that.

In context, John 20:31 is what Israel needed to believe about Jesus at John 3:16, which is the gospel of the kingdom.