beloved57
Well-known member
If they choose ? You just told a bold face lie. Rom 5:10 doesnt say that !
Renounce Your Worthless Religion and Trust in Christ Alone
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
If they choose ? You just told a bold face lie. Rom 5:10 doesnt say that !
Oh yeah?
"For if..." is an appeal...some don't even choose they were enemies...or that He even lived...much less died making reconciliation...
Some don't choose that He lived again after He died...or now can save us...
His appeal was to Romans they were a discerning group.
Some chose to believe Paul and some believed His death and life shall save them...
Some choose to remain enemies...even knowing He died securing their salvation...
some remain enemies without choosing to be...
Some don't even choose to read this text by Paul at all
beloved57
Well-known member
You deny the truth and promote a lie. Rom 5:10!
How so?...only through Him, His death and resurrection, can we (any and all) be reconciled and also saved...
One last step...well two, trust and obey
You promote He only died for those that believed...for those in the OT only?
Those chosen?
beloved57
Well-known member
What you mean How so ? You just do. Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10. You deny that!
Stop moving the goal posts...
I deny what you are trying to imply...that there is a specific group Christ died for...
I maintain He died for all...all were enemies now able to be reconciled...but some still are enemies
You would do just as well talking to a tree. The one that you are talking to is spiritually dead.
beloved57
Well-known member
Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10! All are not reconciled to God while they are enemies since they are enemies under Gods Wrath and Condemnation.Jn 3:18,36
Right...but "whosoever believeth" leaves it quite random because who He gave His Only begotten is specific...the world.
It is not written for God so loved those that believeth...which is what you are insisting
Ben Masada
New member
Personal salvation has indeed been provided for every one by the doing of HaShem when He provided us with the Law. Evidence of the fact is in the whole longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119. Jesus himself confirmed what I am saying when he said that to achieve salvation, one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Jesus could not have provided salvation by dying on he cross because he himself knew that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:3,20; Jeremiah 31:30; etc)
beloved57
Well-known member
You are way off.I dont believe you even understand what you are doing here.
beloved57
Well-known member
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]So does personal salvation come through golden calf worship ?[/FONT]
These dumb attacks on religion get really tiresome, and they demonstrate an extreme level of ignorance on your part. It is because I DO trust in Christ that I trust in all that He established. That includes His Church, His Deacons (greek - diakonos ), Priests (greek - presbyteros ), and Bishops (greek - episkopos).
The Church of the New Testament has Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. My Church has Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. Does yours? If not then it is YOU who are at odds with the Bible, not me.
Christ’s Church is hierarchical. He chose apostles, made Peter the leader, and gave them authorities that all the other disciples did not have. Later, in Acts, the hierarchy develops further. The apostles appoint Deacons (greek - diakonos ), Priests (greek - presbyteros ), and Bishops (greek - episkopos), and each have different duties. It is the same today.
Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Church History) written BEFORE the year 325 AD, traces not only the successors of Peter (the bishops of Rome) but also the successors of the other apostles. He was much closer to the time than we are, as are the other early Christian writers.
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
I'd say this is a bit more than a "shred" of evidence. Care to quit while you're behind?
Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Church History) written BEFORE the year 325 AD, traces not only the successors of Peter (the bishops of Rome) but also the successors of the other apostles. He was much closer to the time than we are, as are the other early Christian writers.
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
I'd say this is a bit more than a "shred" of evidence. Care to quit while you're behind?
Ben Masada
New member
No, but neither comes through the worshiping of the son of man Jesus. (Deuteronomy 4:15-20)
beloved57
Well-known member
Hey, did a golden calf keep the law of God too ?
beloved57
Well-known member
Pate is just as religious as you are !
While Jesus was dying on the cross God tore the veil that covered the "Holy of Holies" from the top to the bottom. This signified the end of the Old Covenant, the law and the Jewish religion, Matthew 27:51.
From this time on people were required to live by Faith and not by laws, rules or religion. Paul wrote, "The Just Shall Live by Faith" Romans 1:17.
Living by faith does not mean living by religion. Living by faith means just what it says. If you have to have and do religion then you don't have faith.
From this time on people were required to live by Faith and not by laws, rules or religion. Paul wrote, "The Just Shall Live by Faith" Romans 1:17.
Living by faith does not mean living by religion. Living by faith means just what it says. If you have to have and do religion then you don't have faith.
Your religion has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15.
Ben Masada
New member
Renounce your Worthless Religion and Trust in Christ Alone.
"Christ" was not the last name of Jesus but a title fabricated by Paul if you read II Timothy 2:8. The term "Christ" comes from the Greek that means the Anointed One of the Lord. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what "Christ" is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son, said the Lord.
"Christ" was not the last name of Jesus but a title fabricated by Paul if you read II Timothy 2:8. The term "Christ" comes from the Greek that means the Anointed One of the Lord. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what "Christ" is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son, said the Lord.