Neil wrote:
One problem I see in "conservative" churches that opens the door, at least, to this Emerging Church nonsense is a lazy attitude about terminological or theological precision.
An example: Many "soul-winners" tell us we need a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. Fine, but what *kind* of relationship? And where does this phrase occur in Scripture, anyway? There are *many* kinds of personal relationships; even Judas had one with Christ, & a lot of good that did him. Is Jesus my brother, my father, a con-man, an insurance agent, my employee, or what? These are all personal relationships.
My son once asked a Fundy pastor this question, & he refused to give a straight answer, even though it's not hard to think of a Biblical one. I think preachers unconsciously adopt this stuff from pop church culture w/o bothering to question or refine it. Thus churchgoers are vulnerable to intellectual confusion & are wide open to heresies.

princecharles wrote:
if hume were to preach to tiger woods he might say that TW is made in the image of God ? He might not i dont know.

Why do christians say that man IS made in the image of God? The Bible does not say this anywhere I can find.
Even infidels can see that they are not made in the image of God.

ONLY ADAM WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD and thereafter (Gen 5) seth was made in the image of Adam. This is a basic doctrine (total depravity) but many christians insist that we are made in the image of God but it doesnt say that in the Word

Now as for YOUR erroneous assertion that no man was made in the image of God after Adam -- "Only Adam was made in the image of God", please refer to Genesis 9:6 which reads: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: ***for in the image of God made he man.***" (KJV)

Welcome back!

Michael Hranek wrote:
John UK
A bit more about the "Reformed" in the USA.
Have you ever heard the word "Arminian"? Basically with many of the "Reformed" if you are not a WCF Calvinist but a Bible-believing serious Baptist type Christian believer you are shunned, persona non grata.
persecution flows pretty much along:
first they defame you
then they marginalize you
then they criminalize you
then they persecute you
Please do note the ecumenical interfaith types PLEASE NOTE who accept the Roman Catholics and their Church as vaild Christians maybe needing reform but accepted as Christian also shun serious Bible-believing Baptist type Christian believers as well. Since many of the Reformed hold Catholic writers such as Augustine in high regard and read Catholic authors they are influenced and drawn towards Catholicism not matter their claims of not being Catholic.
yada, yada, yada ...

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Hi June,
What about the sacrifices we are to make? Jesus was very specific in His instructions at the Last Supper.
I Have to question your interpretation of Jesus as the "table of showbread". Yes, Jesus is the Bread of Life, but He is not a table.
I also agree that the Priesthood, etc established under Mosaic Law have been abolished. But, that does not mean that sacrifices are completely abolished; just the ones described in Leviticus. We no longer have to sacrifice animals. The Mass is sometimes referred to as a "Bloodless Sacrifice".

Michael Hranek wrote:
... there is certainly a "bent" with Calvin OF REMOVING THE BIBLE FROM THE EVERYDAY PERSON TO READ AND LEARN OF GOD and live by into the hands of the elite in positions of church rulership ...

Yet ANOTHER bogus charge leveled against J. Calvin by Mr. Hranek who can NOT substantiate what he states with historical facts. Michael has a "bent" to make up his stuff as he goes along. No scholar is he!

Hidemi Williges wrote:
Calvinist's [sic] are blind to this. When reading their posts, Calvin always comes before God

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is: 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification."

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is: 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification."

Amill wrote:
There is absolutely no reason Biblical or otherwise whatsoever for the Lord to repeat the process of election a second time.

God is omnipotent and omniscient HE has already made all the decisions necessary to election and salvation.
Therefore the concept of a one thousand year period of reigning, with another test or trial at the end of it is both unBiblical and irrelevant.

Fancier wrote:
"A South African company on Wednesday proved it was faster to transmit data by carrier pigeon than to send it using the country's leading internet service provider."
Does this mean that SermonAudio is going to use pigeons, for the comments board, in future?

Good thing they got rid of "apartheid," huh ...
Nelson Mandela would be proud that his efforts have brought South Africa back to pre-carrier pigeon days!

_____

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
The Catholic Church ***HAS NOT DONE AWAY WITH ANYTHING.*** "Thou shalt have no false gods before me" and "Thou shalt not commit idolatry" are the same thing so the Church combined them into one. Both entries are still there just not as separate Commandments

The RCC most certainly has expunged the ENTIRETY of the 2nd commandment (which can be found in Holy Scripture) ...

Exd 20:4!
It reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"

Where does the RCC find the hubris and the audacity to delete an entire commandment from the Law as given by God Himself?

(It's because the RCC esteems itself HIGHER than Holy Scripture -- that's why!)

The RCC thinks it's superior to the Word of God! The RCC thinks it can add to or take away from Scripture as she sees fit.

Well ... Rev 22:19 has something of a shock to say to such playing around with Scripture by the RCC.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
djc49,

Well one of us errs.

The point, *Bert*, is that NO form of representational worship is allowed! Period. That's the whole thrust of the 2nd commandment. And you miss this vital point badly.

Symbols, images, and icons soon turn into that which they attempt to represent. The ancient Israelites in Exodus 32 made this mistake ... and so does the RCC. [The Eastern (Greek & Russian) Orthodox Church is even more guilty still.]

And if YOU read the entire portion of Scripture (Exodus 32) correctly, you can see that the Israelites REPLACED ***MOSES*** with the golden calf! They had a poor and weak conception of God. And even though they had been directly forbidden to NOT make any graven images, they turned around and did so anyway. IMO, the RCC does much the same thing ... and it's of little wonder that the RCC DID AWAY WITH THE 2ND COMMANDMENT concerning graven images and filled out the list of 10 by bifurcating the commandment against coveting into 2 components.

WayneM wrote:
Bert,
A pamphlet possibly presented to the Fathers in a Vatican Council said there were five different interpretations believed by church Fathers in early centuries. The first was the word "rock" referred to Peter was believed by seventeen ancient church Fathers. The second was that the word rock referred to all the apostles, whom Peter represented. This was followed by eight Fathers. The third interpretation was rock referred to the faith of Peter which he had professed. This was the weightiest with forty-four. The fourth was that Christ was the rock. This was followed by sixteen Fathers and doctors of the early church.
There never was unanimous consent among RC church Fathers and doctors on what the rock referred to. They were deeply divided. It is doubtful that the claim that there must be unanimous consent ever existed in the RCC.
Christ gave the same thing symbolized by the keys to all of the disciples. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18:18
At the council in Jerusalem Peter took no part in the conversations, but the Apostle James presided and pronounced the council's decision. (Acts 15)

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
readagain,

In Exodus 32:5, the "LORD" being referred to is the calf. If you keep reading, 32:8 says "They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed
out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping it, sacrificing to it and crying out, 'This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!'. Notice that the Israelites are worshiping the calf and proclaiming that IT is the god who brought them out of Egypt. Remember that this is God speaking and at no time does He suggest that the calf represents Him.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Do you think that God was upset because the Israelites built a golden calf? Or, more likely, was He upset because they worshipped that calf? I suspect that had the Israelites just built the calf and used it as a piece of art, everything would have been fine. Unfortunately, they took the extra step into idolatry which is not acceptable.

Lear Ned wrote:
Not alot to show for all the time you spend in the library! Ever learning and never coming to the truth comes to mind

Mike wrote:
But irrelevant to your comment on Luke 2:33 (NASB) taking away Christ's deity by calling Joseph his father when Philip does the same thing in John 1:45. (AV) PHILIP GET IT WRONG?