What is fascinating is the authorâ€™s near disappointment the museum isnâ€™t a start to finish evangelical â€śpropagandaâ€ť display. If it were, the author could of launched into straw man attacks on Christianity. Not to say he didnâ€™t criticize the creators of the museum with Obamacare lawsuit and federal fines for archeological artifact procurement. In the end, itâ€™s a museum about the historical events within and surrounding the record of Godâ€™s Word. The Bible is itâ€™s own evangelism because it is the Revealed Word. Something lost on the author.
Christopher000, The will of man, in relation to God, is incapable of â€śchoosingâ€ť Him nor does it desire to in its unregenerate state. There is a choice for God in Christ AFTER the disposition of the soul, from dead to alive, is changed by God alone. He takes out the stony heart and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Then the will is no longer in bondage and is free to choose Godâ€”which will be the only â€śchoiceâ€ť to make. A good commentary on this biblical truth is Lutherâ€™s Bondage of the Will.
I think the essence of the article and problem the flesh has with repentance is found in the following:
â€śWe avoid repentance because we remain addicted to the drug of self-justification. â€śI donâ€™t need to repent because Iâ€™m the one righteously calling out the social and personal sins of others.â€ť Or â€śIf I say I am complicit, it will give my political and social enemies leverage against me and my cause.â€ť Or even more to the point, â€śIf I were to really look at and then acknowledge how much self-centeredness and pride infects even my most righteous actions, I would have to admit Iâ€™m a hypocrite and a moral failure.â€ť
John Y, I tried to defend you as a person, but in light of NeedHimâ€™s revelation, I cannot legitimately grant support to your activities. I assumed your comments on these threads were connected to the prevailing topics, but when you purposely go on a forum dedicated, not to news articles, but faithful conversation and post the same RCC rubbish, that is deliberate. I cannot defend such actions. I donâ€™t want to rehash what has been said already, but itâ€™s time you heed the warning and advice of others.
Ladybug, I am on my phone, how do I get the history from it? Plus, how does my posts elude your understanding? I AGREE with all you say about the RCC, but cannot see how anyone can state, absolutely, that anyone attending the Mass is not saved. I attend a small, rural Baptist Church which is it out of the SOLELY because their statement of faith rests on the authority of scripture for salvation and life and Christ alone being manâ€™s hope in this life and the next. Thatâ€™s what I believe and faithfully know.
Ladybug, I cannot produce the thread because I do not remember. But, why does that matter, I did apologize. Your â€śfoolish thinkingâ€ť , again, is mis applied because I do not adhere to the fallacious premise. And, again, I NEVER said, condone, support, or affirm the Nass and itâ€™s system....but neither does John Y. You must realize God will do what you state, but He also IS long suffering. Thatâ€™s not jumping through hoops, thatâ€™s AS true as what you present.
Kev, I have given an answer to your posts. How is it you do not answer the question: who is the determiner of sanctification? Do you or does the Holy Spirit set how and when someone is sanctified? Plus, for all those who attended Mass during the Reformation, were they not bearing fruit of salvation as well? So none of the scripture I present is applicable to you or the anti-troll cohort, but all scripture you present is ONLY for me and not aimed at yourself?
Ladybug, A couple things: 1) I apologized to you et al for ad hominem attacks. Should I expect public forgiveness? 2) Again, I am not SteveR nor a defender of the RCC. As for your questions, Hitler and Obama have said and done things which conspicuously anti-Christ and affirmed them continually, so no I do not believe they were (are) Christians. Unless I see a post from John Y which affirms anti-Christ positions, then I can only hope and assume he is Christian. I know he attends Mass, but then states he does not believe the doctrines of purgatory, trans substantiation, or mariology. I can say heâ€™s lying? Can you? And how would you know?
Finally, maybe you should read yourself sometime and do some self reflecting as well. Because in your post you described me as foolish ( a fool) for adhering to belief you constructed and I do not affirm. What does the scripture say again about calling someone a fool?
Kev, Who is the determiner of sanctification, you and the anti-troll cohort or the Holy Spirit? God in Christ did say all those thing you present, but also said he is long suffering for His people. To think you or anyone can set the parameters for sanctification or conclude absolutely someoneâ€™s lack of salvation by mere reading of posts is not the extent of â€śknowing them by their fruitâ€ť itâ€™s presuming their fruit.
Ladybug, When you asked a couple of weeks ago whether I used another moniker, I said yes, because I did. You teally have no proof to prove otherwise, just like with John Y. How in the world can you say this man is not saved by merely reading sporadic posts on a website? Seriously, how does one who doesnâ€™t live with someone state emphatically ANYONE is not of the faith.? As if there are NO levels of maturity to where a babe is struggling with something more mature folks see as crystal clear and easy to avoid or conquer. I have NO AFFINITY OR SUPPORT FOR THE RCC, none. I speak specifically of John Y the person.
I believe John Y is according to his profession, a believer. I cannot say for sure, as no one here can either. I have read his remarks for the past 7 or so years and see someone at war within himself, as I was and still am, over his attendance of Mass and in a Protestant Church. He has said off the Wall things, which I considered as such, but have pity for him. He doesnâ€™t defend well and has been confronted, but it has become a constant pile on. I just canâ€™t sit by and see this over an over again.
If you and the ant-troll cohort feel it is necessary to continue, then so be it. I DO NOT refute the biblical mandate to rebuke, it is clear. I just feel bad for him for some reason.
â€śBut woe unto, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.â€ť
â€śBrethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.â€ť
â€śSufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of MANY. So that contrawise ye ought rather to forgive him, and COMFORT him, lest perhaps such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.â€ť
â€śForbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.â€ť
â€śWith all lowliness and meekness, with LONGSUFFERING, forbearing one another in love...â€ť
Using the term â€śpilgrimageâ€ť is funny because that is the exact opposite of what these people are doing. A pilgrimage denotes a desire for a spiritual experience, like Luther when he went to Rome. But, praise God, Luther realized Rome was the seat of corruption and church was in need of reform. Though he held to RCC during his sanctification in the time of the Reformation, God used him as an agent for change. I celebrate our brothers and sisters who were guided by the Light of Christ throughout history. SOLI DEO GLORIA!
So, because those on this site have repeatedly loaded up the cart of the lovingly described â€śRoman Catholic Trollâ€ť with scripture verses void of love and resort to constant â€śrebuke, rebuke, remove him from this siteâ€ť gentleness, John Y has had ample warning and should have repented and changed his ways long ago? As if any on here sets the pace and timing of someoneâ€™s sanctification. Peter denied with vehemence the Lord after maliciously attacking someone in the garden with a sword. Then, further in the NT he was confronted for siding with the Judaizers against the Gentiles. According to some here Peter â€śnever really made a clean breakâ€ť from the dead religion of the Jews. Again, look at all the posts from multiple people jumping in NOT to really help or edify, but defend or justify piling on ONE searching professed Christian and lambast the person who dare defend HIM and NOT RCC DOCTRINE.