brakelite

@Gideon I get it. 

KJV Ephesians 3
Paul's Prayer 
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I'm not.  How about you stop trying to refute arguments I never raised?  Think you can manage that?

Making a sinner one with Christ... ATONEMENT... Or sanctification, is not the fruit of being saved. Righteousness is the fruit of being sanctified. I agree that sanctification is a life long process, but that is what the atonement is all about. Cleansing the soul temple of all defilement. If the High Priest in the OT had not bothered to take the blood into the sanctuary on the day of atonement  what do you think would have been God's response? How could Israel have celebrated the feast of tabernacles without Yom Kippur?

By suggesting sanctification as unnecessary to salvation, you are implying the ministry of the priest in the sanctuary as unnecessary,  because all the work of the priests in the sanctuary are integral to the final work on the DoA. None is optional, neither the work in us that accrues as a result of it.

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not doing that.

When you mentioned sanctification. 

I didn't claim either one.  

Okay, so how can you claim salvation without atonement?

50 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

We are saved and justified solely based on the merits of Christ.   We are not saved by Jesus plus anything else.  We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, no additional works are necessary for salvation.   Salvation is not something we earn.

For someone with so much experience on this forum, you seem to have great trouble reading. How can you possibly equate my points on Christ's ministry in heaven as our high priest with our works? Where in all my post did I mention works? Prove to me from the scriptures that the atonement was accomplished on the cross... or that the atonement that out high priest is now officiating on our behalf isn't necessary. 

As if sanctification isn't a part of the good news., or isn't essential to our salvation. It isn't an optional extra. It isn't an "add-on" to the gospel app to enhance it and make it more attractive or easier to use.

That Christ died for me, a sinner, and that on account of the precious blood offered in my stead, I am accounted righteous before a holy God, is indeed a wonderful marvelous thing. That such is at least part of the gospel is without doubt...but is it complete? Does that guarantee my eternal destiny to be in heaven or the new earth?

All the condemnation and penalty for my sins or transgressions have been met at the cross. I am now justified. Praise God!  But...and this is a very big BUT, such does NOT complete the atonement. Unless atonement is made, I may as well die in my sins, and/or live as a heathen. Because atonement was not made at the cross. Although it is taught, that atonement was made and finished at the cross when the Lamb of God died, and although much of the Christian world believes this is the case, and very likely including some contributing to this conversation, the acceptance and popularity of such a concept does not make it any more true, unless someone can find support for it in scripture. I see such support in none of those scriptures thus far offered. 

I think I have written of this previously, but nothing is lost if repeated. 

1. If the atonement was made at the cross of Calvary, by whom was it made? I ask this because throughout scripture we are informed that atonement is the work of a priest...are we to assume that Caiaphas or some of his cronies officiated there as priests? No, they were not offering Christ as atonement...they were murdering him as were the Roman soldiers.

2. Further to the above, the slaying of the lamb did not make atonement, because at no time did the priest slay the victim...it was always the sinner. The sinner would confess his sins over the animal, transferring his sins to the animal, then cut its throat. See Leviticus 4:1-4; 13-15 etc. After this, the priest took the blood into the sanctuary to make atonement. Levit. 4:5-12;16-21.

3. Christ was/is even now the appointed High Priest to make atonement, but could not officiate in such a capacity until after His resurrection. Certainly there is no evidence that He did such a thing while on earth. 

4. The atonement was made in the sanctuary....Calvary was not such a place....Calvary was "outside the gate".

5. According to Hebrews 8:4 Christ could not make the atonement while on earth, because He could not be a priest while on earth, not being born into the house of Levi. The Levitical priesthood was an earthly function, the heavenly priesthood like that of Melchizedek, a heavenly/divine  function.

6. Thus whatever nature atonement was, could not be accomplished by Jesus until after His ascension and entry into the heavenly sanctuary described in Hebrews., where with His own blood He now ministers as our High Priest in making atonement for us.

Thus the gospel we must share, teach, and preach on must be the full gospel in its entirety. No part or portion can be left out as if an optional extra. Only with the full gospel taught is the power of the gospel manifest in bearing fruits of righteousness in those who by nature are still sinners, but who being transformed by the renewing of their minds into the image of Christ. 

Only those who have been fully justified...fully sanctified...will be fully glorified. That is the full gospel.

Here's a few Kiwi colloquiul sayings...if you don't understand them sing out.

Kicked the bucket.

Pushing up daisies.

On the never never.

Up at sparrow fart and shot through.

Tiki tour through the wap-waps

On 28/04/2018 at 6:48 AM, patrick jane said:

You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille

You picked a fine time to leave me loose wheel

I don't trust that arrangement any more than I trust the bogus reports of a chemical attack in Syria. If this world lasts a long as 100 years the historians of that day will be dumbfounded as to the number of lies and deceptions current international policies are being built on.

@Patrick Miron hi. I would like to deal with just one point of Catholic faith (could be here all year discussing this one, let alone any more) and the one I thought most vital to Catholicism when a youngster being brought up in the Catholic faith. That one point is the very first to dealt with above... The so-called universalism attributed to Rome.

Tell me, whether from your opinion or from what you have been taught, what do you suppose took place immediately after Pentecost? Did a Christian church all of a sudden appear in Rome by some miracle and upon which God placed authority over all Christian churches worldwide? Because the Bible says otherwise. The Bible says that the Christian faith grew first in Palestine, then after a few years through Paul in particular, spread elsewhere. 

Allow me to give you a little history lesson. It was in and around 35ad that Paul was converted. He then spent 3 years studying in the desert before returning to Jerusalem to preach to his fellow Jews. Having been rejected by them, he went to the gentiles. So did others, such as Peter and Philip. And Apollos. But most of the apostles started on and around Palestine. Jerusalem was where they held the first church council. A hearing to confirm Paul's ministry to the gentiles. 

The First churches to be established were in Asia minor. Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Then in 70ad, before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, all the Christians escaped to Perea and Antioch. It was in Antioch that they were first called Christians. Philip baptised that Ethiopian official remember? Well he went home and established an Ethiopian Christian church that survives to this day. Thomas went to India, and established the church in Goa. The"St Thomas Christians" as they are known, were renowned for mainly two things. Being persecuted by the inquisition because they refused to submit to papal authority, and for spreading the gospel into the far east. India, Assyria, Persia, Afghanistan, and China, all had large Christian communities without ANY reference or help from any Roman Bishop. The pope was not the head of those churches. Jesus was.

The Celtic church in Britain was the same. Established before the end of the 2 ND century, and a couple of hundred years before Rome sent any missionaries anywhere. In fact Augustine was a very surprised little monk when He discovered a Christian church thriving in a place he thought was full of Pagans.

All these, and more, were established through the missionary activities of churches that had no connection whatsoever with Rome. 

The only way Rome gained any supremacy at all within Christendom was through persecution of those who denied papal authority and through war. Jesus did not establish a Roman hierarchal system to lord it over everyone else... Satan did.

In like manner we are informed that religious extremists/fundamentalists should be eliminated. So what is it to be a religious fundamentalist? One who believes the Bible is the literal word of God...one who believes in the literal resurrection...one who is willing to preach the gospel...one who believes in the literal second coming. These are fanatics. Troublers of the nation. Even the Pope has declared that such do not have to be physically violent...their radically conservative faith in the Bible is akin to violent estremism. 

Retail therapy

16 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

They believe Jesus died for the forgiveness for our sins, and we are partakers of his LIFE. 

I believe you need to do some more research, and discover what they truly believe. They may often speak the same words the Protestant speaks, but what they mean is quite different.

Take the agreement between the Lutherans and the Catholics in 1999 as an example. The Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith. Do you really believe that Lutherans and Catholics now fully agree on Justification by Faith? BTW the so called immaculate conception is intimately linked to the Catholic view of justification and ultimate salvation. Take great care when attempting to claim that Catholics believe and teach the same as protestants. The council of Trent placed an Anathema on all who would believe that justification was by Faith alone. Rome still believes Trent is infallible papal dogma. Thus the agreement so called between Lutherans and Catholics is a capitulation that not all Protestantism is willing to surrender to.

A capitulation by the Lutherans...A compromise to truth.

13 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Not everything is false doctrine 

The believe in the birth of Jesus Christ according to the Gospels. 

Actually, not quite. They teach his mother was sin -less... that such was essential so that Jesus could be born sinless.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

How can someone be part of "God's people"  and at the same time reject the wedding garment?   That is not in tune with the parable.

You seem to manage to maintain such a concept with Israel. Despite rank apostasy and spiritual adultery you still believe them to be God's people right? Whose wedding garment are they wearing? Whose righteousness have they taken on. Christ's or their own? 

But i do get your drift, and I agree. Except one has the righteousness of Christ, despite professing to be saved, they are indeed lost.

That bloke in the parable had accepted the invitation, and was as good as already sitting down waiting to be served. But like tares, or the 5 virgins without enough oil, or even the antideluvians who ignored Noah's message, he was eventually locked out.

1 hour ago, brakelite said:

Quite. After inspection the fella without the right wedding garment was tossed out on his ear.

KJV Matthew 22
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
 

5 hours ago, Yowm said:

Those who reject it aren't God's people, are they?

Quite. After inspection the fella without the right wedding garment was tossed out on his ear.

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Taht's beside the point.   God's chief attribute is not love; His chief attribute is holiness.  He holds all other attributes in holiness and perfection.

Okay. Perhaps one day I may be motivated on starting a discussion on God's holiness. 

8 hours ago, Yowm said:

 

And like any loving father he will administer discipline when needed.

And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
(Heb 12:5-11)
 

God's people everywhere, of whatever denomination, are being prepared for the second coming. The invitations have been extended, some have refused, some undecided, some accepted. Those who have accepted are now being appropriately dressed, clothed in Christ's righteousness. Some reject the garment offered, some have hung it in the wardrobe until a later date, some have accepted it. Those who have accepted it need to change their lifestyles in order to fit it. Here is where the loving discipline you so correctly remind us of, comes in. Some reject it. Some are uncomfortable with some aspects of shedding the old addictions, traditions and habits, some refuse new light on old beliefs, some commit fully and surrender the bodies living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto their Saviour.

When the bride is ready, fully dressed and without spot and blemish, the Bridegroom will come.

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Before God is love, God is holy.

Can the perfect expression of one exist without the other?

The modern Catholic church, despite her attempts to convince protestants otherwise still adheres to the council of Trent. That council affirmed that only through  papal approval can anyone go to heaven. They hold the keys right? So if the pope says some atheist is in heaven, I guess it's because the pope used his authority to override the entire Bible and the government of God and sent that boy's father there cos that's the kind of good guy the pope is.

When God says He gave His only begotten Son, I believe He had a Son to give.

The pope is a Jesuit. They make up their own rules. If it advances the cause of the papacy they will convince anyone of anything.

Bar rain

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

I don't want to get too far off track with the dog, but he is a special one.  His full kennel name is Watson the Blessing.  He's a therapy dog we take to libraries, senior centers, and memory-care centers.  I also sit outside stores with him when my wife shops.  He probably has 3000 to 4000 interactions with different people per year.  He loves meeting people.  He'll go up to completely strangers, and politely nuzzle (never licks) and snuggle against them.  He seems to sense when people need him.  I've seen a few people start crying as he snuggles.  He knew something was wrong and went over to do something about it.  One lady was going into the store after her 3rd funeral in one week.  She had her face down by him and he'd just alternate between staring into her eyes and nuzzling her face.  A few years ago after I had quit a job due to almost collapsing due to stress, he knew something was wrong with me and would spent much of the day following me around the house and laying down where he could keep an eye on me.  He's also highly intelligent, knows a ton of tricks, enjoys pulling carts and carrying things to help out.   Over the years, he's opened the doors for me to interact with many complete strangers.

The bible seems largely silent on pets and eternity, but if part of the New Earth is anything like Eden where Adam was mostly surrounded by animals and nature, I think there's a place for gentle souls like this dog.

Animals can certainly sense our moods. I grew up with horses. My great-grandfather, grandfather, and uncle, were all renowned trainers in the racing industry in NZ. I visited the stables often as a youngster and could tell many stories of how these marvelous animals would interact with us. Yes, I remember as I buried my cattle dog, I wondered if by God's grace there was room for a resurrection of those animals that we were particularly close to. If so, would very much like to meet Watson. Oh, and you of course. 

The number of Protestant churches that have joined in signing various declarations of unity with Rome, such as the Joint Declaration of Justification by Faith between the Lutherans and Catholics in 1999....the "Declaration on the Way--Church, Ministry, and Eucharist", more recently, are two of many such documents being bandied about. This latest document is a further capitulation by Lutherans regarding the truth of the gospel. 
Here are some examples of the fallacious so-called unity that is supposedly being negotiated...what they are as you will notice, is a complete turn-around from Reformation theology, soteriology, and several other "ologies". Not all Lutherans have signed on, but other faiths have signed similar documents with Rome, such as the Anglicans and the modern church in Europe that descended from Jan Huss. 
In the first section, Agreements on the Church, it reads:
4. Lutherans and Catholics agree that the church is in every age apostolic because it is founded on the apostles' witness to the gospel, and it continuously professes the apostolic and evangelical faith while living by mandated practices handed on from the apostles. Thus we recognize both in our ecclesial communities the attribute of apostolicity grounded in their ongoing continuity in the apostolic faith, teaching, and practices. (p22).
9. Catholics and Lutherans agree that the church on earth is indefectible, because it is and will be preserved by the Holy Spirit in all aspects essential for salvation. 
(The definition of indefectible is flawless...free of fault or decay.) Seriously? Lutherans agreed to this? Luther will be having apoplexy in his grave. 
On Authority of Ministry it reads:
20. Catholics and Lutherans also agree that the office of ministry stands over against the community as well as within it and thus is called to exercise authority over the community. (This is medaeval Papacy confirmed. The dark ages and the council of Trent affirmed). 
On Agreements on the Eucharist it reads:
Lutherans and Catholics agree that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, Jesus Christ Himself is present: He is present truly, substantially, as a person, and He is present in His entirety, as Son of God and as a human being. What can I say?

Finally, after dealing with some of the more obvious compromises and capitulation of the Lutheran church, here is an outright lie, from section 4 under the heading of Church.
Drawing on the writings of Luther on the means of grace and marks of the church and on VaticanII regarding tradition, the church, and ecumenism, Lutherans and Catholics today "mutually recognize, at a fundamental level, the presence of apostolicity in our traditions". Luther contributed to this insight "when he insisted that a manifold Christian substance must be recognized in the Roman Catholic Church", for he perceived there the true holy scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys for the frgiveness of sins, the true office of proclamation, AND THE TRUE CATECHISM". 

NOW LET ME QUOTE LUTHER. 
..."nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinance increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God. All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled in the Papal tyranny. (Martin Luther 'First Principles' pp196-197).

How can there be any harmony between what Luther actually wrote, and what is being promulgated in the fraudulent document above? 
How can any true Christian align himself with Antichrist and remain true to the Way, the Truth, and the Life?