-cont-
Nor does our "status" depend what we think about each other...what He says is what's the FINAL WORD on the matter. You CAN'T excommunicate me, and I CAN'T excommunicate you....only HE can do that. Can the "car washer" tell the "cook", "you don't really love Dad, if you did, you would wash his car, like I do. In fact, he has disowned you becuase of it. And I don't want anything to do with you either." Is that binding to you, thier father, or even speak to your opinon on the matter?
Now you think that just because we aren't carbon copies of each other, we aren't unified. Sorry, but that simply is not TRUE. It is not BIBLICAL. I am comfortable with those who sit under teachers from all denoms, as long as they is within the "orthodox" Gospel truth.
You think that the Communion is transubstantial, I don't. Our view on that is NOT WHAT SAVES.
You confess your sins in a booth to a man. I don't. But our view on that is NOT WHAT SAVES.
Our view on Who Jesus is and what He did for us, and PLACING ALL TRUST in that is WHAT SAVES.
Let's just say that we meet for dinner. We're both having prime rib, but you like rice pilaf and I like baked potatoes. We are still having a SINGLE UNITED MEAL together. That is not "division" unless you argue that I must eat rice pilaf, or else, in your opinion, we might as well be at different tables. That CREATES division.
We are banqueting/FEASTING....don't make me eat your preferences. Let's just BOTH be so very greatful He even invited us and we accepted that invitation.
If we are at His table, in "full communion" with Him...then we are de facto in "full communion" with eachother.
Now, could you pass me the salt, please?
Ripleys –
I fully agree that we are called to have full love and charity for one another. This is true irrespective of our differences. In fact we are called to love even the unbeliever with the same zeal. We are called to love unconditionally but the truth is we do not, and cannot. We do our best and rely on God’s grace to increase our ability to love and his mercy to forgive our failure to do so.
Disagreement with someone is not an indication of love or lack of it. I love my wife and you should see how we argue! I love my children dearly. If one of them were to renounce our family, move from home, and cease to participate in our family activities, I would still love them and they would still be part of the family. But I would most certainly consider them to be not in full communion with the family. In this case, they would be separated. Not that we would exclude them but that they would choose to leave. If my wife left me, I would still love her. Again, in this case we would be separated, not because I wanted to exclude her from our family but because she chose to no longer be a part of it.
We can and should still love to the best of our ability even though there is separation. Do you agree that with respect to faith, we are separated from Hindu, Muslims, Mormons, etc.? Do you agree we are separated from our Jewish brethren yet still worship the same God? Why is it so hard to extend that to differences within Christians?
So there is a difference between being a member of the Body of Christ and there being full communion within it. Yes, each of us “*are 100% his*”. Through faith (and I believe also through baptism) we are all members of his Covenant Family. But the fullness of family life is not limited to the relationship between only the father and the son. This is why our faith is much more than just our personal relationship with Jesus Christ – it is communal. When Jesus prayed for unity, he used familial language. This unity was not just about an individual personal relationship for each of us but full communion with the Father AND with one another.
And I’m not talking here about salvation. Salvation is exclusively through God’s grace. So yes, we can and are “saved” despite our differences. The goal of unity goes beyond individual salvation. It is so that the world will know that Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father.
Also, regarding canon: IMO all we really NEED to knowfor salvation is in any of the Gospels. And if we NEEDED to know how we got here (Where did the world and sin begin?) then Genesis too. Other than those books, are the others NECESSARY for the knowledge of YHWH and Messiah?
NOT saying they aren't wonderful and teach us more. Or that we should discard them, or ANYTHING like that. But we could understand the Good News without them.
ws so basic your saying we all one one in communion with Jesus Christ but not in communion with your sect of Christianty?
So yes, we can and are “saved” despite our differences.
And all that are saved ARE the church.
There's only ONE church, wk: HIS BODY. Many denominations, yes, but ONE CHURCH, THE CHURCH. Not two, or seventy-five, or four hundred and thirty-six.
The goal of unity goes beyond individual salvation. It is so that the world will know that Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father.
Yes, it is...by "car washers" letting "cooks" be "cooks" and not forcing them to be "car washers". Loving the diversity, not insisting on duplication.
Even you and your wife have different functions, UNITED in your marriage. Same goes for the church.
What I’m saying is that Jesus Christ prayed for unity within the Body of Christ so that the world would know the Father sent him. When there is disunity, those outside the Body see it and question his promises and turn away. We are left without a fullness in the Body and thus are not complete. We do not have true shalom as a Body and as a family. Sure we may, as individuals, be “saved” by our own personal relationship. But we do not have completeness, oneness and the Body is left without all of it’s parts working in communion with the other.
Ripley’s – all of your posts talk about different ways of serving God. Your quotes from scripture talk about how different parts of the body serve the church. What I’m talking about is unity in beliefs.
When you say “loving diversity” are you talking about God loving the fact that we disagree on elements of faith? In other words, do you believe the Holy Spirit leads some to believe baptism is part of God’s plan for our salvation and leads others to believe for infants it is merely “getting wet”? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit leads one part of the body to believe that we have assurance of salvation and leads another part of the body to believe that salvation is a life-long process? Or that God changes modes? Or that for some people Jesus is symbolized in the Eucharist, for others he is spiritually present, and for others he is physically present? What I see this as is relativism - Truth is different for different denominations. No – God does not love this kind of diversity.
Chafer – Are you going to reply to my previous posts???? If not, I will close out my participation in this thread with a final summary post.
p.s. Did anyone read the numerous quotes I provided regarding what the early church believed about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Any comments?
Ripley’s – all of your posts talk about different ways of serving God. Your quotes from scripture talk about how different parts of the body serve the church. What I’m talking about is unity in beliefs.
Sorry, but what
makes us His body is NOT what we think Communion is, or what Baptism does....WHAT SAVES US, MAKES US ONE NEW MAN, HIS CHILDREN, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE IS HIS BLOOD. AND ON THAT WE AGREE.
Do you think there is going to be some kind of entrance exam on
all things spiritual before we enter? How about eschatology? That too?
Did Paul, or James, or even Peter tell the Messianic Jews that they COULD NOT get circumcized? Or COULD NOT continue eating Kosher? Or did they say,
we are one, in Christ, REGARDLESS? Paul certainly does not say we are lacking even though we aren't all the very same. Beyond gifts, even different
administrations are mentioned.
There in ONE ESSENTIAL understanding: Yeshua HaMashiach came to save us with His blood, all we need to do is TRUST GOD'S PROVISION. His resurrection is proof of His truthfulness.
So, therein lies the division: YOU! You want to erect walls where there are none. You make your own doctrine that is flatly contradicting the Bible...which, of course you can do, because
your sages say so.
POPPYCOCK, WK! We won't be in perfect union until we are in heaven.
I am done with this conversation.
1.Eucharist The wine and blood do not come literal His body.
Jesus is present in Communion yes Jesus did say when 3 or more are gathering in my name I am there.
I believe when I take communion Jesus is in our mist but not the elements being Jesus himself.
2. about baptism you cliam The earley church all being it require for salvation well I given you evidence from 100ad of The Church put new believers on a waiting list to see if there conversion and if they really wanted to understand the scripture first.
3. it already proven Jesus only spoke of the hebrew cannon as being God word.
i already shown you the other books you mention were use for scholar purpose and i also given you evidence of jews holding the hebrew text Higher then those other books.
Jans also given you info that those books are mere writtings of jewish people not to be taken as scripture.
Your whole arugment is because The church fathers and some jewish sects consider them scripture then they are.
well i can list church fathers disagreeing with others on certain books so does that make what I say true they are not inspire?