Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew

When you separate the Father from the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Son and have them speak to each other, it is impossible to not be polytheism.

What is proscribed in the Bible is worship of false gods and idols.
It isn't that there is too many gods, its worship of things that are not god.
If you think that is wrong, go ahead and quote something.
The "one" thing in the Old Testament is about the unity of the various gods of the Israelites.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I think redeemed believers should produce good works/fruit. But I certainly don't put my trust in my good works.

If you have a lack of good works, then trusting in something else is not going to do you any good.
Paul said it is that spirit in you doing good works that will raise you from the dead.
If that spirit is not in you, then wishing is futile.
You need to focus enough to pray for a revival while you have the opportunity.
Being content and thinking you are rich is the sign of Laodicea and you will be spit out.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What is directly stated in scripture is that "no man" can say that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. You are teaching that that verse is incorrect, that people without the Holy Spirit can in fact say that Jesus is Lord.

What you are "directly" quoting is 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is comparing belief in pagan idols with belief in Jesus.
Where the first is the result of being led astray, the second is the result of God's leading.
Everyone has that, being led, as a gift, which we call grace.
For eternal life, you need more than just an influence towards Jesus, but a relationship where you receive an infilling of the spirit from God through Christ.

edit on 5-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yes, verse 3 specifically. But you need to go back to the original claim I was challenging by mentioning 1 For. 12:3. TJ stated that Catholics and Protestants "do not have the Holy Spirit". I pointed to that verse specifically, among others the describe fruits of the Holy Spirit to directly challenge that statement with scripture. And that challenge is that the Word of God states clearly that "no man" can profess that Jesus is Lord EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit.

I think his Bible has a ton of asterisks written in pen on multiple NT and OT passages.

reply to post by jmdewey60

If you have a lack of good works, then trusting in something else is not going to do you any good.

I would say that is generally true, except for maybe the "babes in Christ" who are new to the faith. I would point to James here that says saving faith produces works. And I certainly don't think I'm spiritually rich, I freely admit I have a long way to go. The Lord is working on several things in my life.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . you need to go back to the original claim I was challenging . . .

OK, TJ is making a claim that "You refuse to [be] baptized into Christ. You refuse to be baptized by His Spirit."
This looks like some sort of cult belief that probably cannot be directly refuted by quoting scripture, but probably is better to be questioned as to if there is any biblical support for it.
I can't think of any that would.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

He'll defend Reckhart and claim the professional is wrong.

Bet you two jelly doughnuts and a can of Coke.

No bet -- of course no education and guessing trumps academic training every time

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Lord is working on several things in my life.

This sort of thing should probably come out more in your rhetoric, maybe not so directly but enough to temper what sounds to me like cult slogans.
Like what I was saying earlier about "finished work", if you do a search for that, you find something like I quoted, which is the work we need to do.
If there was an actual Bible verse that said, "I trust in Jesus' finished work", then that would be something nice to quote.

And I don't mean "it is finished" because, for all we know, it may be the work he was sent to do, or his life period, or the relevancy of the Jewish temple service.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . you need to go back to the original claim I was challenging . . .

OK, TJ is making a claim that "You refuse to [be] baptized into Christ. You refuse to be baptized by His Spirit."
This looks like some sort of cult belief that probably cannot be directly refuted by quoting scripture, but probably is better to be questioned as to if there is any biblical support for it.
I can't think of any that would.

edit on 5-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No, his specific statement I was addressing was the claim that Catholics and Protestants "do not have the Holy Spirit". To which I asked how we have A) conviction of sin, B) trust in Jesus Christ, and C) proclaim Jesus as Lord, when the Bible says those things are a direct result of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

He'll defend Reckhart and claim the professional is wrong.

Bet you two jelly doughnuts and a can of Coke.

No bet -- of course no education and guessing trumps academic training every time

Not necessarily, what trumps both of those is a $1,400 doctorate from the internet.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Lord is working on several things in my life.

This sort of thing should probably come out more in your rhetoric, maybe not so directly but enough to temper what sounds to me like cult slogans.
Like what I was saying earlier about "finished work", if you do a search for that, you find something like I quoted, which is the work we need to do.
If there was an actual Bible verse that said, "I trust in Jesus' finished work", then that would be something nice to quote.

And I don't mean "it is finished" because, for all we know, it may be the work he was sent to do, or his life period, or the relevancy of the Jewish temple service.

No, I mean in His completed work of redemption at Calvary. Which is a vital aspect of the gospel which Paul directly spelled out in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, I mean in His completed work of redemption at Calvary. Which is a vital aspect of the gospel which Paul directly spelled out in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

OK, then what does verse 2 mean?

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

What would they have "believed in vain"?
Seems like what he just said, "this gospel".
What word then was he talking about "holding firm" if they already were believing the gospel?
I would say it is his instructions given in the preceding chapters about righteous living.
If you believe but don't keep to the word, meaning actually doing what you are told, your believing did you no good.

reply to post by jmdewey60

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

I suspect that, by the time Paul wrote this, there were a number of competing "Christ believing" sects in circulation, and this is him saying "whether you believe in Christ or not isn't what matters, but what you believe about him does." Being this close to his lifetime would mean that eyewitnesses, or claimed eyewitnesses, would still be around, and if they were preaching something that was contrary to Paul (such as belief in circumcision or keeping Jewish holy days,) that was something that he (and the orthodox church) was warning against.

Contrast that with the Gnostic Christians that would have prevalence a hundred years later -- they firmly believed that Christ existed, firmly believed in him, but had a radically different view of who he was, and what that meant. If simple belief in Christ's existence was all that mattered, lots of heretics, including the Gnostics, not to mention the "demons that know Jesus", would be saved, and we know that is not the case.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Actions speak louder than words. You defend sins. You refuse to baptized into Christ. You refuse to be baptized by His Spirit. You oppose His servants.

That's just a cliche, not a basis for systematic theology. What is directly stated in scripture is that "no man" can say that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. You are teaching that that verse is incorrect, that people without the Holy Spirit can in fact say that Jesus is Lord.

Saying that Jesus is Lord is more than just words spoken. It includes actions.

If your view was correct, it would mean that Mr. Obama is saved and a man of holiness. He has said that Jesus is Lord, but his actions reveal his true lord.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think it would be the same warning as in Hebrews where the writer is warning Jews that while the temple was still standing and they were experiencing persecution it would be an error to go back to the sacrificial system of Judaism. Because the author writes that after Calvary there remains no other sacrifice for sins. I.E. the blood of bulls and goats. In verse 2 he is telling the reader to hold fast to that gospel in chapter 15, to rest their trust on it.

I don't know why you insist on bringing up works and righteousness. We both know the NT calls for that as a reasonable service for Christians, and the Holy Spirit leads us in that direction in the process of our individual sanctification. There isn't a challenge amongst theologians that Christians shouldn't strive for holiness. And I argue that people will emulate or become like that which they worship.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Then you are lying. I've corrected you dozens of times that my theology is one God who exists in three persohoods.

You're bearing false witness of what I have said numerous times. Not only is that a straw man fallacy, but it's also a lie to claim someone said something they never said.

When you separate the Father from the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Son, it is impossible to not be polytheism.

If they are not separate personhoods of the One God that makes Jesus a complete schizo because He speaks of them both in the third person. And I don't think Jesus had a mental disorder.

Separate persons, is separate gods. As I have said, the prayers of Jesus are the prayers of a man, not the prayers of god #2, not the prayers of a God with a mental disorder.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

which means you don't have one person, "God", who changes from the Father to the Son (what your cult believes).

No, that would be basically a Christology that Truejew is espousing. That in one mode or circumstance God is the Father, then on another mode or circumstance He appears as Jesus.

Not exactly correct.

reply to post by truejew

Saying that Jesus is Lord is more than just words spoken. It includes actions.

If your view was correct, it would mean that Mr. Obama is saved and a man of holiness. He has said that Jesus is Lord, but his actions reveal his true lord.

Like I quipped earlier you must have hundreds of asterisks written in your Bible.

I believe the implication of that verse is someone who proclaims Jesus is Lord from their heart, not someone saying it in a campaign to get elected because he knows his electorate is majority of Christian persuasion.

EDIT: I can only find one quote where Obama said "Jesus is Lord" and it was a retort to someone who called him the Antichrist at a speech in L.A. Just one statement.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

which means you don't have one person, "God", who changes from the Father to the Son (what your cult believes).

No, that would be basically a Christology that Truejew is espousing. That in one mode or circumstance God is the Father, then on another mode or circumstance He appears as Jesus.

Not exactly correct.

"Basically".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

I believe the implication of that verse is someone who proclaims Jesus is Lord from their heart, not someone saying it in a campaign to get elected because he knows his electorate is majority of Christian persuasion.

Someone who proclaims Jesus is Lord from their heart will have it show in their actions.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

which means you don't have one person, "God", who changes from the Father to the Son (what your cult believes).

No, that would be basically a Christology that Truejew is espousing. That in one mode or circumstance God is the Father, then on another mode or circumstance He appears as Jesus.

Not exactly correct.

"Basically".

We do not teach that God can only be in one role at one circumstance. He can be in both roles at the same time.