Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

1 Cor. 1:20? Really? So you rip a verse out of context to support your position after thoroughly misrepresenting the Lord's Supper earlier? You're on an unsustainable path.

 

steaver,

I can hardly even follow your posts, much less understand the points you are trying to make.

I have never said anything about not loving the Lord. Yet you say things like this:

When utilyan said what he said (a comment which you attribute, apparently, to the both of us), my initial understanding was that he was rejecting not the idea that faith simpliciter was essential, but that "faith alone" as you insist it be understood was essential.

So instead of accusing others of being under the spell of Satan, or saying things you'd obviously love them to say, it would make more sense to ask them if they mispoke or incorrectly expressed an idea.

Why not take a moment to seek further clarity from people so that you can begin to get a handle on what it is they actually profess to believe?

Until you begin to do this, you're simply engaging in a particularly bizarre form of sophistry.

The best way to win someone over to your position would be to demonstrate clear, cogent arguments for your positions, not attack persons or their ability to clearly and accurately express their ideas.

And even if you prove to us that utilyan doesn't hold to Catholic doctrines (something I quite suspect you'd be unable to do), all you'll have demonstrated is something about a single, fallible person. Your demonstration would have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church, its teachings, its divine founding, or its stewardly authority.

Again, please ask utilyan if he meant what you think he meant or if there's something he'd like to say to revise or amend his comment. For certainly, if he claimed that loving the Lord wasn't essential, he'd not be arguing against you, really. He'd be arguing against the very Catholic Church which you're (rather ineffectively) arguing against.

Herbert

 

DHK,

I was just re-reading some of our earlier exchange and I see that I opened a comment to you intending to say "Hello, DHK" but I left out the "o" at the end of the word "Hello." I just want to let you know that if I could go back and correct that, I would. And it was most definitely not a case of me cursing in frustration, which it possibly appears to be!!!

Herbert

 

All,

This has been an interesting experience. It has been my desire all along to present my views in charity and kindness. I hope I have lived up to this goal!

At this point, suddenly, it turns out that my Internet connection will cease tomorrow. So I will not be visiting with any frequency, if at all.

To all of you, I wish you the best. This has been an interesting and engaging adventure!

In Him,

Herbert

 

I didn't notice and no offence was or is taken.

 

Why did the disciples leave Jesus John 6? He even told the twelve why don't they leave too?

Claiming to be divine...already done it. Claiming to be son of God, nothing new.
Lamb of GOD........no problem. There was symbolism. No one left.
Im the vine you are the branch, no one leaves.

If Jesus was being symbolic about being the bread. why leave? It was nothing NEW.

Instead they STROVE how can he give us his body to eat and drink.


55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Leave it to our buddies to take a verse BACKWARDS again.

Heres folks who followed him, did miracles, heard all claims of divinity, were loyal......and here comes Jesus with John 6.


Why did they leave? It wasn't like the other times at all he was being serious.


Whats so "HARD" to understand between Lamb of God who takes away sins of the world which all disciples were familiar with. IM REALLY son of God ok we can let that happen....."baptized"....... Oh I'm bread from heaven, SYMBOLICLY.

Whoa whoa whao JESUS......you are SYMBOLICLY BREAD from Heaven!? No way pal we are done we are leaving. The straw that broke the camel's back. was he SYMBOLICLY described himself like BREAD.

If thats how you think it went down. Pray for some common sense.

Oh no, REAL PRESENCE. They couldn't handle just like you guys can't handle it.

All early Church Fathers recognized

 

You cannot be talking about the NT Scriptures as they never came about in the form we now know them for another 300 years down the road. No, the WORD was and is Jesus Christ Himself and this WORD was to be PREACHED to all nations. Jesus never said to write anything down, He said to preach.

And Jesus also talked about a CHURCH and we are told in the letters of the NT to take any problems we have to the CHURCH, meaning to the authorities of the CHURCH for a just settlement, not for us to just pick up our Bibles and work the problems out ourselves.

Your second baptism was a waste of time as this sacrament, unlike Holy Communion can only be done once. You were baptized as an infant according to the correct formula and you were duly "born of water" like the Scriptures say. The second time around you were simply "born of the spirit" and when I returned to God as an adult after 15 years in the wilderness I know full well the feeling you had. All I had to do was confess and repent of my sins and I was accepted back into the fold.

 

But He is constrained by His own word (John 10:35). His real body was before the apostles all the way through that first Lord's Supper. How can He point to a piece of bread and teach that was literally His body? We need to have what A.W. Pink called 'spiritual eyes' to discern spiritual matters.

Moreover, His physical body remains in heaven until His return in glory.
Acts 1:11. 'This same Jesus, who was taken up rom you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.' He does not return as a piece of bread!

Acts 3:21. 'Whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things......'

To be sure, our Lord returns spiritually before then (eg. Matthew 18:23; John 14:23), but His physical return will not be until the end of time. I'm afraid that your bread god is something of your own creation.

 

You are imposing spatial and physical limitations on God. He created the laws of nature so He is not subject to them. I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around this.

 

It is believed that all the gospels were written between A.D. 58-65. Matthew was the first of those to be written, ca. 58-60. That is where one finds the Great Commission given just before the ascension of Christ ca. 30 A.D.
All of the apostles had the gospel, taught to them by the resurrected Christ, before the ascension of Christ. What do you think Christ commanded them to preach in 30 A.D.??
The last books to be written were the books authored by John, 90-98 A.D., which completed the canon of Scripture. To imply that the Apostles and early Christians did not know which books were inspired is absurd. Do you think that the apostles, though taught personally by Christ Himself for 3 1/2 years, were ignorant bumpkins not knowing which books were inspired and which were not? Do you not think that they could tell their own inspired writing apart from a forgery?
They didn't have to wait 300 years for RCC approval. You need to stop listening to ridiculous RCC propaganda which says that the RCC knows better than God!!
It is God that gave the churches the Scripture; not the so-called "Church" that gave us the scriptures. If you believe that, then you believe that your so-called "Church" is greater than God--a lie from the devil.

Provide scripture, not opinion, and we will see what he really said.

The first so-called baptism wasn't a baptism.
Learn some history:

From Herchel Hobbs, Baptist Faith and Practice:
. It should be noted that while the verbs for “pour” and “sprinkle” appear in the New Testament, neither is used for baptism. No usage has been found where baptizo means either pour or sprinkle. The practice of sprinkling for baptism gradually replaced immersion in the Catholic Church and when it divided into the Roman and Greek branches, the latter retained immersion. It was not until the thirteenth century that sprinkling became the official mode of the Roman Catholic baptism.

Why Baptists reject sprinkling and pouring for baptism is quite clear. The mode is not New Testament baptism, and back of it is a perversion of the meaning. But why do Baptists reject the baptism of those who practice immersion for salvation? The same principle applies.

Assuming a believer as the subject, New Testament baptism requires both a proper meaning and a proper mode to express that meaning. The meaning is a symbol of Christ’s redeeming work for and in the believer. Only immersion expresses that meaning.

Only a believer who has put their faith in Christ can be baptized.
The only method of baptism accepted is by immersion.
The RCC rejects both of those; it is an apostate religion.

--You don't know anything about my feelings. I obeyed the Lord in a step of obedience by being baptism. How did I feel? I felt wet. Now that is not hard to figure out is it?
Other than that, I did not speak in tongues; the Holy Spirit did not come upon me; I didn't cry or weep; I had no great emotional uplift, etc. It was a simple step of obedience. I got wet. I had to go and change my clothes afterward.
What do you know about me that I don't? I would like to know since you are acting like God being omniscient here and telling me things I don't know!!

If all you had to do was confess and repent your sins, then you probably aren't saved or born again. How old were you when you did that?
What sins did you confess? Did you confess and repent of all of them? Did you miss any of them, even just one in your life time? Do you have that good of a photographic memory, or and "eidetic memory," as they call it? I doubt it. Trusting Christ doesn't require one to repent of all their sins.
Repentance is a change of mind. It means that one changes his mind or attitude with respect to God. If you did, you were rebellious in your attitude toward God as all men are. Repentance is coming to the point where one changes his mind (being convicted by the Holy Spirit), and submits to Christ as LORD. Now Christ is Lord, and you are His servant; no more rebellious but submissive to Him. That is what repentance is--a change of mind in one's attitude toward God.
To put one's faith in Christ means that Christ becomes Lord of your life and your previous masters--the world and all that is therein is forsaken. Christ is now Lord. I doubt if that ever happened in you.
True Biblical Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.

 

[

DHK said :If all you had to do was confess and repent your sins, then you probably aren't saved or born again. How old were you when you did that?
What sins did you confess? Did you confess and repent of all of them? Did you miss any of them, even just one in your life time? Do you have that good of a photographic memory, or and "eidetic memory," as they call it? I doubt it. Trusting Christ doesn't require one to repent of all their sins.
Repentance is a change of mind. It means that one changes his mind or attitude with respect to God. If you did, you were rebellious in your attitude toward God as all men are. Repentance is coming to the point where one changes his mind (being convicted by the Holy Spirit), and submits to Christ as LORD. Now Christ is Lord, and you are His servant; no more rebellious but submissive to Him. That is what repentance is--a change of mind in one's attitude toward God.
To put one's faith in Christ means that Christ becomes Lord of your life and your previous masters--the world and all that is therein is forsaken. Christ is now Lord. I doubt if that ever happened in you.
True Biblical Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.[/QUOTE]


I don't understand you as you seen to be all over the place. First you say that Baptism is not a requirement, then you say you were baptized a "second" time? Why? If it is something that is not needed, it is a useless exercise, no? I only questioned your need to do this particular act in the previous post, but I never questioned your feelings and your resultant spiritual rebirth.

Now I know Baptists and Evangelicals are big on confessing and repentance and when I relate to you that is what I have done, suddenly such a thing is not good enough or even proper. Likewise, you know nothing of my deep down feelings and are in no position to question my experience in this life, my sins, my ultimate return to God, and my continuing attempt to live a holy and pleasing life unto Him through the worship and acceptance of His only Son Jesus Christ through what I believe to be the church which He established on this earth.

 

Baptism is not and never was a requirement for salvation.
Baptism simply gets you wet. There is no impartation of grace. It certainly can't save, or forgive sins. It just gets you wet! Why is it so important for parents in the RCC to have their infants unnecessarily doused with what could be some polluted water by a complete stranger (to the infant). He or she didn't ask for this torture. It is against the infant's human rights!

I looked up the history for you. There was no infant baptism for about five centuries after the death of Christ! Were all those Christians or infants who died before that time in hell today??
The Bible teaches that one must first believe and then be baptized. Baptism is a step of obedience on the part of the believer, not a requirement to be saved. It is for the believer not the unbeliever. It is in obedience to the command of Christ (Mat.28:19,20), AFTER salvation.
One obeys the command because Jesus commanded it.
One obeys the command because it symbolizes our death to sin and our resurrection to a new life in Christ.
One obeys the command even though it simply gets you wet; not holy; not saved.

If you don't understand what repentance is you probably haven't repented. What you described is something you DID--a work.
Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works.
Salvation is regeneration not reformation. It is not confessing your sins and then saying I can do better. Or, promising not to do it again (because deep inside you know you will). That is not repentance.
Study the definition and description I gave you on repentance.

I simply responded to what you said to me, which is:
I know full well the feeling you had. But you don't. So why try and judge feelings?
Salvation is not based on feelings, neither the experience you speak of.
Salvation is based on the Word of God, and thus the importance of sola scriptura. The Bible is our final authority. If it is not according to the Word of God then it is wrong.

I have people tell me they know they are going to heaven because they saw Jesus in a dream.
Hogwash! Salvation is not seeing Jesus in a dream. It is trusting Him by faith and faith alone. It is putting one's trust in His sacrificial work on the cross. He said "It is finished" (Jn.19:30). There is nothing more that any one can do (including being baptized). Jesus paid it all.

There is no good thing one can do. There is absolutely nothing one can do to merit eternal life.
One cannot please God. Christ hung there on the cross. He paid the penalty for our sins. No man can help him pay the penalty. Christ paid it all. We simply need to take the gift of salvation that he has provided by faith. There is nothing that man can do. Jesus did it all.

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

For nothing good have I
Whereby Thy grace to claim;
I’ll wash my garments white
In the blood of Calv’ry’s Lamb.

And now complete in Him,
My robe, His righteousness,
Close sheltered ’neath His side,
I am divinely blest.

And when before the throne
I stand in Him complete,
I’ll lay my trophies down,
All down at Jesus’ feet.

Jesus Paid It All | Elvina M. Hall