Fruit is the reproductive body of a seed plant. So if the gospel is a seed planted, fruit if the product(s) thereof. Now, your definition-- are you going to show us that you heal and cast out demons, or are you going to refuse to do so?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
how can the RCC Claim to be THE teacher On Christianity and Doctrines?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Fruit is the reproductive body of a seed plant. So if the gospel is a seed planted, fruit if the product(s) thereof. Now, your definition-- are you going to show us that you heal and cast out demons, or are you going to refuse to do so?
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Are you saying that when an unbeliever believes the gospel, that is someone elses fruit because of the seed planted? Or explain slowly to me. Lets figure out the definition of fruit between you and I first,We'll get to mine
No, stupid, you didn't see those words in there. Are you going to show us that you heal and cast out demons, as you claimed, or are you a coward to make any attempt?
plain_n_simple
Active Member
I will get to the miracles in my life in one momento sir.
I'm sorry I'm stupid, but if you give me your definition of true fruit in a person that proves the Holy Spirit is in them, I will show you your definition can be copied by an unbeliever and is a bad definition. Then to mine
Alright, you're forgiven.
My definition of the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance, faith.
I'll believe that if I see it.
plain_n_simple
Active Member
"love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance, faith."
Any person can claim and demonstrate these things. They are fruit of a Christian yes, yet a Buddist, Atheiest,,Muslim and Irishman can all do the same. How can you know them by their fruit using this definition? You cannot. Any person can do these. There must be another or deeper meaning in addition to this one, that cannot be copied.
Any person can claim and demonstrate these things. They are fruit of a Christian yes, yet a Buddist, Atheiest,,Muslim and Irishman can all do the same. How can you know them by their fruit using this definition? You cannot. Any person can do these. There must be another or deeper meaning in addition to this one, that cannot be copied.
plain_n_simple
Active Member
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Notice this is talking about false Christians and true Christians. The wolf in sheep's clothing can reproduce all you gave from Gal 5: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance:
Would you agree that these can be faked?
Would you agree that you are evading the agreement you yourself proposed as you refuse to show that you heal and cast out demons?
plain_n_simple
Active Member
I promised I would get to that, when we establish the original OP test of what constitutes a true believer, led by the spirit
We all read scripture through a cultural lens. In other words, Baptists read it as if the churches in the N.T. were Baptist churches; Lutherans read it as if the churches were Lutheran; Catholics read it as if the churches were Catholic. How so? Practices that are spoken of with a measure of ambiguity are seen in the light of the reader's experience. For instance, when the N.T. speaks of baptising households, Lutherans and Catholics just assume it means infants because they are not explicitly excluded in any of the four accounts of household baptisms. The Bible doesn't say either way. Same thing with the Lord's Supper. When Paul speaks of it, Lutherans and Catholics will visualize the presiding individual holding up the host and consecrating it. Baptists will visualize praying over the bread and wine (or grape juice) and then passing it around. Again the Bible is silent.
The fact is that there are very few N.T. practices that are totally free from ambiguity. Consequently we get a lot of denominational gloss when we read about the early church in the New Testament.
The fact is that all of the distinctive Catholic doctrines do have a basis in scripture. Some of them rely heavily on Tradition but none of them are excluded by scripture. I have shown that many times on this forum but the responses are always something like, "That can't be what it means." Then they go on to explain that, "We know this is so; therefore that can't be so."
Your saying there are no monarchial bishops in the N.T. is once again your seeing scripture through your baptist lenses. The idea of having a presiding bishop is seen very clearly in Titus 1. Very clearly Titus had authority over the churches of Crete and exercised it by appointing elders in each city.
As for the beliefs about Peter being fables, I know you are wrong. A fable is a story that usually portrays a truth through the speech and interactions of animals, and inanimate objects. It is a genre of literature and I am not aware of any fable in which Peter is the object of discussion.
As for what I think you intended to convey, I did read the article you provided in the link and it appears to be that the author is really straining to show that Peter was not in Rome. One thing he mistakes, that Cathoiics belive Peter established the church at Rome. Not so. He got there about the same time as Paul, which explains why he is not mentioned in the epistle to the Romans. Did you consider the source of the article? I looked around the site and it appears to have come from the Church of God in Pasadena. Unless I am mistaken, this is the cultic group that was led by Herbert W. Armstrong and later by his son, Garner Ted Armstrong. Back then they referred to themselves as the Worldwide Church of God.
I have given you what I can on that, scriptural reference and all, but you just say the Spirit makes no difference, that anyone can show/have those qualities. Now, are you going to show us that you heal and cast out demons?
The Catholic Church has no prophets. In fact it is Catholic dogma that all public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Those visionaries who came along later, and who still exist, are said to be worthy of belief but not for doctrine. In fact, there is no requirement that they be believed at all. The Church of course must be believed but it doesn't add anything new. It only clarifies matters have always been around.
Surely you jest! Have you ever heard of hyperbole? If you equate Peter with Satan, you're saying Jesus asked Satan to tend His sheep. Would Jesus turn His sheep over to Satan? Really? And does that mean Satan wrote two books of the New Testament? Have you removed 1 and 2 Peter from your Bible?
I jest want to know your answer: Did Jesus call Peter "Satan?" Yes or No?
Yes. He also told us to pluck out our right eye and cut off our right hand. Do you think He literally meant that? He told us to take up our cross. Do you think He meant for us to carry around a heavy piece of wood? Do you think Jesus would entrust His sheep to Satan? Yes or no is appropriate.
Probably not, in almost all cases. When He refers to doing awful things to human flesh, it is meant in a symbolic sense; such as I don't think he meant his own flesh is for eating.
That one is closer to being a literal reality, as disciples were executed in the Roman world over the next 3 centuries, and crucifixion was a method.
I don't have the answer to that. The particular church being discussed here, which claims to be the only true church by which His word and will are promulgated, did a great deal of torture and killing of the innocent in order to take their possessions, to keep tyrants in control, or just for the fun of it. If that church does have such status, maybe He did entrust his sheep to Satan. Regardless, whoever does the evil acts against which followers of Christ are not protected, no one keeps them from happening.
The murder and torture of those with whom you disagree is a sad fact of history. The Romans killed the early Christians (Catholics all) using many cruel methods. Catholics killed many Moors and other Muslims during the Middle Ages. Then they did the same to Protestants. But they weren’t alone. The Protestants were just as bloodthirsty. Just ask Thomas Moore, a devout Catholic who was put to death by Henry VIII. We even see Protestants killing each other as in the Salem witch trials.
I don’t know why people have been so cruel toward each other. Fortunately that has stopped, at least for the time being. No one in the Catholic Church is proud of some of the atrocities that were committed in the name of God. Likewise I doubt if anyone of the Protestant tradition would say amen to the murders committed by their predecessors, such as John Calvin and Henry VIII.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The big deal is that if they stay, they are told what they must believe. That is not soul liberty. The only way a Catholic can have that is to become an ex-Catholic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
targus said, "So when two or more Christians that are indwelt with the Holy Sprit read the same Scriptures and come to different and conflicting interpretations...?"
To which you replied. "In that case, those born again Christians aren't being led or controlled by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can be quenched or grieved."
You are saying that if two Christians come to differing conclusions about a scripture passage, then one of them is not being led by the Holy Spirit. You cannot make that blanket statement. Why? Because it is possible that both Christians are partly right and partly wrong. None of us has the entire truth, nor are we capable of obtaining it. That is what Paul says. That is true.
Last edited by a moderator: