Orthodox Christians

[The Biblicist]

LOL, he was talking about people who claim they have no sin in need of forgiveness.

1Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Ec 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Ps 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

Ps 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Isa 64:6 ¶ But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


1 Jn. 1:8 claims there is no Christian (we) who is without present sin and anyone who claims different is deceived (talking about you).
1 Jn. 1:9 claims there is forgiveness for Christians (we) with present sins
1 Jn 1:10 claims that if Christians (we) have not sinned in his past that is making God a liar.


Hence, there is no Christian without present and past sin or does not need to confess sin. That means your personal life is not sinless, never was sinless and never will be sinless prior to glorification. Hence, you have no personal life to present to God which did not fall short of His glory. Hence, no flesh can present his own personal life to be justified in his sight.

So what life can you present to God on judgment day that does not come short of God's standard of righteousness? We may claim forgiveness of sins because of Christ's death but no man can claim justification based on his own personal life as all human lives (but one) have "come short" and continue to "come short" and always will "come short" of the glory of God here and now.

 

[Bob Hope]

he doesn't! He disagrees with YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christ on salvation! When you are forced to PIT Christ aganst Paul the true source of your doctrine is exposed - 1 Tim. 4:1.

Acts 1:18-25

King James Version (KJV)


18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

 

[billwald]

>Every religion in the world, except for Christianity is a religion of works.

Agree. Modern Christianity is a religon of "believing in."

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 1:18-25

King James Version (KJV)


18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

There will never be more than 12 apostles TO THE JEWS. Paul was not called to be an Apostle to the Jews but to the Gentiles and the 12 Apostles realized this and accepted it:

Gal. 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.


BTW the Apostolic chair over the church of Rome - a gentile congregation was Paul's not Peters. - Rom. 11:13

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

 

[Bob Hope]

There will never be more than 12 apostles TO THE JEWS. Paul was not called to be an Apostle to the Jews but to the Gentiles and the 12 Apostles realized this and accepted it:

Gal. 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.


BTW the Apostolic chair over the church of Rome - a gentile congregation was Paul's not Peters. - Rom. 11:13

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Upon Peter would Christ build His CHURCH. End of story.


Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Upon Peter would Christ build His CHURCH. End of story.


Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Wrong again! "thou" (Peter) is second person singular but "this" (Rock) is third person singular. The nearest grammatical antecedent for the third person singular "this" is not Peter but "it" in verse 17 which in turn has its grammatical antecedent the confession of Christ in verse 15.

Second, Jesus first addresses him as "Simon bar Jona" in verse 17 but changes to "Thou are Peter" found in the anarthous construct which is an intentional characterization of the meaning of "peter" or "rock" as used in this building context:

1. We have a builder - "I will build"
2. We have something to build - "my church"
3. We have a foundation to build upon "upon THIS rock"
4. We have the characterized kind of material to build with "Thou art Peter"

This is the meaning as the same promise is applied to the PLURAL "YOU" in Matthew 18:18 which in turns has its nearest antecedant of "the church" in verse 17.

Peter and his name characterizes the kind of building materials Christ would use to build the institutional church.

Peter understood Christ to mean this as in 1 Peter 2:5 he describes the building materials used for building the church institution:


5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

The term used by Peter is "lithos" translated "stone" and it is the same term used to describe Christ in verse 4:

4 ¶ To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

But when it comes to the same Greek term used by Christ in Matthew 16:18 translated femine "PETRA" or "rock" Peter identifies Christ as the "Petra" not Peter:

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock [Petra] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Furthermore, in this same letter Peter denies he holds any position above any other elder:

1 Pet. 5:1 ¶ The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,

1. "Among you" NOT over you
2. An "also an Elder" not Pope!

So wrong again on all counts!

 

[Bob Hope]

Wrong again! "thou" (Peter) is second person singular but "this" (Rock) is third person singular. The nearest grammatical antecedent for the third person singular "this" is not Peter but "it" in verse 17 which in turn has its grammatical antecedent the confession of Christ in verse 15.

Second, Jesus first addresses him as "Simon bar Jona" in verse 17 but changes to "Thou are Peter" found in the anarthous construct which is an intentional characterization of the meaning of "peter" or "rock" as used in this building context:

1. We have a builder - "I will build"
2. We have something to build - "my church"
3. We have a foundation to build upon "upon THIS rock"
4. We have the characterized kind of material to build with "Thou art Peter"

This is the meaning as the same promise is applied to the PLURAL "YOU" in Matthew 18:18 which in turns has its nearest antecedant of "the church" in verse 17.

Peter and his name characterizes the kind of building materials Christ would use to build the institutional church.

Peter understood Christ to mean this as in 1 Peter 2:5 he describes the building materials used for building the church institution:


5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

The term used by Peter is "lithos" translated "stone" and it is the same term used to describe Christ in verse 4:

4 ¶ To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

But when it comes to the same Greek term used by Christ in Matthew 16:18 translated femine "PETRA" or "rock" Peter identifies Christ as the "Petra" not Peter:

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock [Petra] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Furthermore, in this same letter Peter denies he holds any position above any other elder:

1 Pet. 5:1 ¶ The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,

1. "Among you" NOT over you
2. An "also an Elder" not Pope!

So wrong again on all counts!

I agree that Christ is the chief cornerstone, but I believe He gave Peter a special mandate. He certainly would be the rock that Christ would use. After verse 18 what does Christ tell Peter only.....



And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that Christ is the chief cornerstone,

He is not merely the "chief cornerstone" but he is the "PETRA" the exact term Christ said the church was built upon. The third person demonstrative pronoun "this" has its grammatical antecedent in the profession of Christ by Peter. Peter characterizes the church made of such stones.

After verse 18 what does Christ tell Peter only.....



And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

He tells Peter in the same CHARACTERIZATION capacity as a resprentative of the kind of building material Christ uses to build his churches out of (1 Pet. 2:5) and the absolute proof is that this very same promise is given to the PLURAL "you" in Matthew 18:18 NOT MERELY PETER and the grammatical antecendent of that plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 is "the church" in Matthew 18:17 built of such characterized stones as in 1 Pet. 2:5.

 

[Bob Hope]

He is not merely the "chief cornerstone" but he is the "PETRA" the exact term Christ said the church was built upon. The third person demonstrative pronoun "this" has its grammatical antecedent in the profession of Christ by Peter. Peter characterizes the church made of such stones.



He tells Peter in the same CHARACTERIZATION capacity as a resprentative of the kind of building material Christ uses to build his churches out of (1 Pet. 2:5) and the absolute proof is that this very same promise is given to the PLURAL "you" in Matthew 18:18 NOT MERELY PETER and the grammatical antecendent of that plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 is "the church" in Matthew 18:17 built of such characterized stones as in 1 Pet. 2:5.

Yeah, I can see that.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


Alright, I retract my Peter comment.

 

[DHK]

So it would seem the difference between us is that you use Pauls message and I am using Christs.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There is only one kind of salvation: it is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. There is no other way. Christ and Paul agree on the same thing.

There are no works involved in salvation.

Why do you steer clear of John 10:27-30? It is as if you have torn it out of your Bible. Have you?

 

[Bob Hope]

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There is only one kind of salvation: it is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. There is no other way. Christ and Paul agree on the same thing.

There are no works involved in salvation.

Why do you steer clear of John 10:27-30? It is as if you have torn it out of your Bible. Have you?

The faith that Christ spoke of was backed by obedience as confirmed by Hebrews, James, and Revelation. As Christ said

John 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And what does Christ say at the end of the Bible?

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[DHK]

The faith that Christ spoke of was backed by obedience as confirmed by Hebrews, James, and Revelation. As Christ said

John 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

These are not salvation verses. This verse was spoken to His disciples about discipleship. They would be blessed and would gain reward in heaven by keeping his commandments. They would not lose their salvation. Their names are already written on the twelve foundations of the walls of the New Jerusalem.

And what does Christ say at the end of the Bible?

Revelation 22:14

And what does Christ say a couple verses before that?

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

The only ones that will be with him are the saints, those that are already saved. They are the ones that will be rewarded according to their works. That also is what is being referred to in verse 14. The verse is not speaking about salvation but about reward for believers in heaven.

Why do you avoid John 10:27-30?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There is only one kind of salvation: it is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. There is no other way. Christ and Paul agree on the same thing.

There are no works involved in salvation.

Why do you steer clear of John 10:27-30? It is as if you have torn it out of your Bible. Have you?

If he has, how is that different from what Martin Luther wanted to do with the Book of James? Oh, but of course he solved that dilemma by penciling in a word in there to make the scripture agree with him. And that's equivalent to the contortion and twisting that some on here do if they don't agree with the clear words of scripture, even though they accuse their opponents of pitting scripture against scripture.

 

[DHK]

If he has, how is that different from what Martin Luther wanted to do with the Book of James? Oh, but of course he solved that dilemma by penciling in a word in there to make the scripture agree with him. And that's equivalent to the contortion and twisting that some on here do if they don't agree with the clear words of scripture, even though they accuse their opponents of pitting scripture against scripture.

I don't know that Martin Luther has anything to do with this conversation. Since he is dead he can't speak for himself; or do you divine? Why the red herring? We base our beliefs on Scripture, not men.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't know that Martin Luther has anything to do with this conversation. Since he is dead he can't speak for himself; or do you divine? Why the red herring? We base our beliefs on Scripture, not men.

My example was relevant. Luther's being dead has nothing to do with it. The Book of James didn't fit with his belief, and since he couldn't tear it out of the Bible, he inserted a word to make the passage in question agree with him. Some do the equivalent here while denying it and making false accusations against others while claiming to be scriptural inerrantists and literalists.

 

[DHK]

My example was relevant. Luther's being dead has nothing to do with it. The Book of James didn't fit with his belief, and since he couldn't tear it out of the Bible, he inserted a word to make the passage in question agree with him. Some do the equivalent here while denying it and making false accusations against others while claiming to be scriptural inerrantists and literalists.

Again, it is totally irrelevant. I don't know of any who did what Luther did. You should be ashamed of even making such a suggestion or accusation!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Again, it is totally irrelevant. I don't know of any who did what Luther did. You should be ashamed of even making such a suggestion or accusation!

Totally relevant. You and Biblicist did what Luther did. You claim that the Bible says we are saved or justified through faith alone; it does not. It implies it, but it does not state that. In fact, the Book of James explicitly denies it. You and Biblicist , while claiming to be inerrantists and literalists, are only such when the scripture clearly and explicitly agrees with your preconceived notions. When it clearly and explicitly contradicts those notions, you have to resort to all kinds of contortions and machinations to make it fit, all the while accusing those who disagree with you of pitting scripture against scripture.

Further, it is you who accused Bob Hope by saying: "Why do you steer clear of John 10:27-30? It is as if you have torn it out of your Bible. Have you?"

So, who is the accuser, hmmm? I know you would like to tear some passages out of the Bible or pencil in some clarifications, like Luther -- too bad.

 

[DHK]

Further, it is you who accused Bob Hope by saying: "Why do you steer clear of John 10:27-30? It is as if you have torn it out of your Bible. Have you?"

So, who is the accuser, hmmm? I know you would like to tear some passages out of the Bible or pencil in some clarifications, like Luther -- too bad.

Well, why hasn't he given an explanation of that passage. I have never shied away from any passage of Scripture. Here is a passage of Scripture that goes directly contrary to yours and his beliefs.

 

[The Biblicist]

Totally relevant. You and Biblicist did what Luther did. You claim that the Bible says we are saved or justified through faith alone; it does not. It implies it, but it does not state that.

Since you injected me into this discussion then I will respond for myself.

Would you agree that whenever we come to a scripture the obvious wrong thing to do is to use one scripture to PIT it against another scripture, unless you deny inspiration of Scripture and believe God is the author of confusion. So would you agree that the problem is not with scripture but with a person's interpretation with scripture IF they are forced to PIT one text against another? Agree? If you do not agree then what basis do we have for discussing anying as you deny the inspiration of scripture and do believe it is a book of confusion and contradiction? Agree?

 

[Bob Hope]

Since you injected me into this discussion then I will respond for myself.

Would you agree that whenever we come to a scripture the obvious wrong thing to do is to use one scripture to PIT it against another scripture, unless you deny inspiration of Scripture and believe God is the author of confusion. So would you agree that the problem is not with scripture but with a person's interpretation with scripture IF they are forced to PIT one text against another? Agree? If you do not agree then what basis do we have for discussing anying as you deny the inspiration of scripture and do believe it is a book of confusion and contradiction? Agree?

The problem stems from understanding. No logical mind can rightly divide the truth of God.


Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.