Search results

I understand what you're saying, but accusing someone of lacking integrity is still a personal attack.

Yeshua, the 'transformation' refers to those physically living Christians caught up in the Rapture/ the parousia; it says nothing about those who have already physically died. Thus my question remains unanswered. Poor analogy but let's run with it. Yes, the fuel is essential for the car to...

Ah, the joys of autocorrect! FWIW, I am in a state of flux at present, spiritually.

My home church. You decide!

What he said.

This, on the other hand, is a personal attack.

I'm not sure why or how what he put in his post to which you responded here was a personal attach anymore than what you said about his post...?

I think it's USING CAPITAL LETTERS TO POST ON THE BB

So would you be happy for any old Joe or Joanna from the street coming to the front at your church and 'doing the communion bit'? If not, why not?

Don't tell me. It's the Pope isn't it? In that case, the Antichrist is taking a vacation right now so there should be no barriers to the Kingdom of God being spread right across the world.

Then whence 'alone'. It's not in the Bible, except where it says that we are NOT saved by faith alone (James 2:14-26, to give the context). You say 'red herring', I say 'foundational to your case'. Yes, I know. [B] I'm also aware of the Greek. I'm aware it doesn't contain the word μόνον...

Quite a bit: a starter would be 'Do this in memory of Me.'

They can do whatever they want; whether it would be licit or not is another matter... Again, one can realize anything one wants from a 'plain reading' of Scripture, which is of course why we have so many disagreements here. Whether your 'plain reading' , DHK's or mine is correct or not is...

No, but there is such a thing as church order and discipline, is there not? Yes this is how the Church has done it (++Peter Jensen's personal opinion notwithstanding) since the beginning.

If he's ordained by a successor of said Apostles, then yes; hence how the Church can and does do this today.

Administration, yes; consecration of communion, no.

No, it's in conflict with what you say the Bible says. Massive difference.

I still struggle with the picture of God Who commands the slaughter of babies and infants; how can we condemn the abortionist when we - seemingly on these verses - worship a God Who orders the same????

Jesus gave the command re communion primarily to the Apostles, not to any old Joe or Joanna.

But that's not what Jn 14:23 actually says, is it? That just doesn't work, does it? There can't be many 'pillars and grounds of the truth', since then there would be many truths. That is of course unfortunately exactly what we see in evangelicalism: a muddle of contradictory epistemologies...