1Cor1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Interesting verse US. Paul is in Ephesus writing to believers in Corinth.
This section addresses the point that it's not the mighty men with their excellency of speech and enticing words of man's wisdom that is able to convince fallen man. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.
Despite that, Romes arminianism says that, man can "make a decision" if only we can make the right presentation.
But God says that He CHOSES the weak and the foolish - no convincing. Salvation is the power of God. It's His calling!
No flesh can glory in His presence- neighter the decision maker, nor the wise presenter.
1Cor1:21 has nothing to do with RC, if anything it condems it.
Steve throws out verses because he wants you to read into it that it pleases God to save poeple through preaching. Of course it does. So what! what does that have to do with the price of bread in Tibet. Totally unrelated
Read further down Steve "But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"
1517 wrote: After reading through the postings, I don't see where SteveR is defending the supposed office of the Pope
SteveR floats in and out of certain aspects of RC that he claims he mildly dissagrees with. Are you not familiar with his position on RC'sm? It is very clear. The pope & RC are inseperable.
The bible is the start and the end of our authority. Church history proves that man is fallible, and that Gods word was always under attack. The worst corruptions were under way within the first 100 years. Read Pauls letters, you can see the attacks going on. That's historical record that we ought to pay heed to.
Gods people broke free of Rome. Go do likewise.
As far as these bones go, these bones will be introduced softsell - "not sure if is Peter's, doesn't really validate the papal office.." But just like praying to the dead started out not really praying, these bones will eventually be to the duped masses real proof that peter was in Rome to start the papal office.
SteveR wrote: Catholics and historians rely on the writings of Tertullian and Origen for placing Peter in Rome. Christopher considers himself a more reliable source than these two Saints of the Early Church and claims Peter wasnt there. These Saints risked their lives, property and family to record these events. thus.. Christophers work is nonsense at best, and intential deception at worst
"The decision to exhibit is controversial. No pontiff has ever said the bones are without doubt those of Saint Peter, and some within archaeological circles are fairly sure they are not" The Guardian
I will put my money on the popes. They didn't believe in this.
Steve Even if these are Peter's, it does not validate the Pope's office. It doe's prove that Rome is a grave robber.
SteveR wrote: No CV It wasnt a simple spelling mistake
I took great offense
Adam Clarke on Luke 1:17
It was simple spelling mistake when had read it. But you went off on it anyway.
You taking offence at what I said is so phony. You're trying to hammer away at me because you want to divert away from the main point of my comment - the evanjellyfish false teachers are going gaga over this pope.
And your angle on me is to pretend the words itself had some magical biblical powers and demand special reverence. Then you go and use the word trinity - clearly a term used to describe God- and make it UN-holy, and missapply it to people.
(Go ahead, you're braying and chomping at the bits- "trinity is not in the bible")
Don't shed a tear for this. Shed some tears for what Rome is doing.
I have offended Steve, but Rome it's gazilions. Wait, that sounds familier, 1Sam18:7. Can you make something out of that too?
John Yurich USA wrote: Freedom of Religion means that one is free to practice their religion anyway they want to including not subscribing to all the doctrines of their religion.
JY Freedom of Religion is not a RC doctrine. The right to practice whatever religion is a First Amendment right prohibiting government intereference.
Mike/NY always witty and funny
John/UK This Pope was never at odds with the Jesuits. This is the most ecumenical Pope ever. He goes in the spirit and power of the antichrist to soften the people and prepare the way to turn the hearts of it's children to their father. Wait till the Pope goes on tour. Protestant evangelical leaders will be flocking to the party.
SteveR wrote: 1) if you read carefully you will find the RCC maintains more of Gods Sovereignty in Salvation than your garden vareity Arminian Protestant.
2) Further, it bears more of a commentary role and opinion unlike the Protestant ones that are a substitution of truth like RCC 1994 "1994 Justification is the most excellent work of Godâs love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that âthe justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,â because âheaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect... will not pass away.â43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.(312)"
3) Judah BenHer and the Roman Navy were spared in the battle w/the Macedonian pirates?
What utter nonsensicle drivel
1) Armins is really the core of Romanism. Don't know why we pander to either as biblical!
2)How does Rome define JUSTIFICATION?
Rome does not have "MANY unscriptural doctrines" as some are saying here. Rome has NONE, ZERO scriptural components! Satan is very deceptive and clever - just like Stevie.
2) (For in preaching, God had to be commanding God to baptize)
John for JESUS wrote: 2) No, He was telling His disciples to baptize
No! We've already covered that. Paul in all his preaching never considered the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit that took placeas a result of his preaching, (and I am sure it took place), as BAPTIZING. But Paul distinguishes a distinct physical act that he lists as having performed on only very few occasions as the act of baptizing.
That's our final authority. No overiding a clear biblical definition! The Bible is not silent on this. So you have no legitamate point
In the bible, the appostles "baptized" is always in reference to a distinct physical act, and never in reference to preaching as you arrive at it.
J4J wrote: Agreed. The physical act was laying of hands.
YOU ADMIT NOW THAT THE COMMAND TO BAPTIZE IS NOT MET THROUGH PREACHING.
J4J wrote: CORRECT. However, that doesn't change the fact that the disciples first preached and also baptized by the laying on of hands. I consider that baptizing, right? Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans and they (as a result of being baptized in a physical action of laying on of hands) were filled with the Holy Spirit.
"baptized in a physical action of laying on of hands"
But I asked you that at the start - if it was a distinct physcal act - like water baptism?
The GC "to baptize" then had to be fulfilled through laying on of hands? (For in preaching, God had to be commanding God to baptize)
The GC cammand was to BAPTIZE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH LAYING ON OF HANDS! A distinct seperate act from preaching. Right?
"In the command to preach, if the desciples preach then the desciples is said to have preached. If the desciples set up and God preaches, are the desciples said to have preached?
Are the two literally the same?"
I put this to you. And you answered NO!
John for JESUS wrote: No, they are different
NO! It is not baptizing either! In as clear an articulation of what you've been calling "baptizing", you admit it's not.
You assert a label "literal baptism" by repeating a mantra "in preaching they preached, in baptizing..literally"
You keep it at this surface level where you simply assert the label. Because examining the legitamacy of steps at how you arrive at your assertion forces you to admit NO, it's different.
You admit that the command to baptize is not met through preaching. In the bible, the appostles "baptized" is always in reference to a distinct physical act, and never in reference to preaching as you arrive at it.
But you're crafty. Even after you admit, you will override and repeat your mantra.
You assert your label, not arrive at it. Because it is not honest.
Your arguement method is clever and crafty. Always on the surface and keep it shifting!
John for JESUS wrote: 1) The command to baptize meant they were to baptize and the command to preach meant they were to preach. 2) The command for them to go and baptize meant just that, literally. That's what they literally did! So, it wasn't out of their hands.
Let's get your terminology. Straight.
In the command to preach, if the desciples preach then the desciples is said to have preached. If the desciples set up and God preaches, are the desciples said to have preached?
At question is the command to "baptize" in the GC. No one questioned the fact of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that takes place as a result of preaching. This baptism God does. The existence of this baptism is not at dispute, but this is where you keep steering it to get a win.
Does God make a disnction between the two?
"One must mean one, literally!" The question is, does lieraly mean literally?
In the command to preach, the deciples preached. The command to baptize, they preached. They had full control in preachng.
But since to preach is literally the same as to baptize, the deciples baptized and had full control in "every way".
The deceptive way something is twisted to say something.
Paul in all his preaching with all the conversions never considered those baptisms to mean the same as the one commanded. Because he talked about doing this distinct baptism only a few times.
For a Christian that would suffice to bring about a clearer understanding on this.
This exposes J4 and his clever method of deception.
J4 does not like to walk through clear steps. J4 keeps shifting so no consistent arguement can be developed against what he asserts.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) The command to baptize meant they were to baptize 2) The command for them to go and baptize meant just that, literally. That's what they literally did! So, it wasn't out of their hands.
You peach, God baptizes. Baptizing is in Gods hands exclusively! But you want everyone to agree that this is LITERALLY the same as what you posted.
In preaching, baptISM may happen. But baptIZING doesn't, otherwise you'd baptize everyone.
You agreed that "to preach" is not = "to baptize"
You want everyone to agree that - You preach God may or may not baptize literally means "YOU BATIZED".
1Cor1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach"
Does Paul not think that the two are seperate acts? That you can actually baptize? On it's own?
To believe what you believe, one has to believe LIKE you believe first. You have to start with a mass of jumbled confusions and contradictions