JFJ Forums

Clarification:



RE: His body, unity, the church.

From Romans 14 CJB- Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? It is before his own master that he will stand or fall; and the fact is that he will stand, because the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person considers some days more holy than others, while someone else regards them as being all alike. What is important is for each to be fully convinced in his own mind.

HOLD IT!! What, Paul??!! You mean we might be different? Have different PERIPHERAL BELIEFS? "...convinced in his own mind"?? How could you SAY that? What about the Holy Spirit? He might lead us differently? Not specific holy days? -gasping for breath- I suppose next you will say that not all have to think of the elements as being TRULY/LITERALLY His blood and body! Or of regenerating baptism! If we aren't the same, then someone doesn't have real "truth"!! No unity!! Jesus prayed for UNITY!

You then, why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For all of us will stand before God's judgment seat; since it is written in the Tanakh, "As I live, says ADONAI, every knee will bend before me, and every tongue will publicly acknowledge God."

Therefore, let's stop passing judgment on each other! Instead, make this one judgment - not to put a stumbling block or a snare in a brother's way.

Like insisting we are MERELY the mystical/almost/kinda church, and RCC it the true and visible church. (Of Kefa, or Apollos, or Paul? Is Christ divided?)

Frankly, I preferred it when RCC just said we were heretics and quit beating around the bush about it. Word parsing is misleading/lying/hypocritical. It's what the Enemy does. I rebuke you for THAT.

We either are ONE or we aren't. His or Not His. Simple as that. It's not up for a vote. Not even an "ecumenical council" vote.

Now I really am done with the topic. Promise.

We are to seek unity in the faith, but it must be unity based on the truth of Scripture. http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/...what-cost/

Okay Ripley’s -  I hear what you are saying and agree with quite a bit of it.  But it is all about personal salvation.  I’m not judging anyone’s salvation nor have I ever in any of my threads.  What I’m addressing is what non-believers see when they see disunity in what Christians believe.  An example from other threads in this forum is with regards to the Trinity.  Some have an entirely different view of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father which they base on their personal interpretation of scripture.  Others see this and believe that Christians do not have a consistent understanding of who Jesus is.  This raises doubts that Jesus is the Messiah.  They do not “believe that it was You who sent Me” (Jn 17:21).

The context of Romans 14 is not doctrinal relativism.  Paul is exhorting those who are of stronger faith to show charity towards those “whose faith is not strong” (14:1) and to not pass judgment.  The epistles need to be understood in context of Jesus and the Gospels, not the other way around.  Most of Paul’s epistles were written to address disunity.  This was a concern of Paul and the early church for the very reason Jesus prayed that we would be one.

Walls are put up when people make posts falsely claiming that a particular denomination teaches Replacement Theology, or when people make statements that opening dialog between Christians and Jews is to “make up for years of …”.  Walls are “erected” from disunity and are torn down through information and dialog.  This was the purpose of Paul’s epistles.

Paul was clear that he did express in freedom of thought and belief.


You can read this  about what he said about not eating food if it offends another in front of them but for still for each person to be convince in his own Mind.


basic pal is saying Eat the food that convince in your own mind but if offends another in his mind do not do it infront of them.




One of the main reasons I think a believe would be offend because they might still believe the kosher laws are for today while another thinks there are free to eat anything.

Paul wants them to be convince in there own mind Not base on what anyone says but base on There own reason even thou somone else reason might be different still paul wants them to be convince in there mind to.



I know the old arugment there is over 20,000 churches with the same bible but with different reason while the catholic church has One.


this statement is double stander which because even through out History there been disagreements in time with the catholic Church with other catholics disagreeing with others.

we can see with the Church fathers they also disagree with each on things.

No, but what you are doing is contradicting Jesus words that ONCE we are saved, we are His, and that means the church, and the church is His SINGLE body. All different functions, all one unified body, working together.

wk, if there is no longer Jew or Greek, how can there be Roman and Lutheran? If anyone had claim to be the "true and visible church" it would be Messianic Jews! Evidenced by THE physical sign of THEIR covenant: circumcision. THAT idea was what Paul (and the rest) were fighting against. "YHWH has circumcized our hearts." For a Jew to eat something not Kosher was against ALL THEY HAD BEEN TAUGHT. But here comes a gentile who loves Messiah, and knows that the meat is nothing. Paul tells those who understand liberty to defer to that brother for his sake, not to stumble him. And yes, for the sake of unity, not to rub it in his face that he is weak. Love is the important thing. But that weak brother, and the stonger one, they ARE ONE IN CHRIST. Not "on thier way to being one", and "as soon as the weaker one 'get's it' they will be one"...sorry that's not what the scripture is teaching.

I have consistently embraced you as my FULL BROTHER, with no caveats. Not my "mystical" even though not "true and visable" brother. Even though we don't agree on all things; we agree on the preeminent "thing": Christ's atoning blood on the cross. I don't agree 100% with many BROTHERS/SISTERS here about some things. (And not all that are here, on this forum, are brothers/sisters...but I will call them friends. And mean it!!)

All those details of "free will", "predestination", "depravity of man" will be made completely clear and we will be 100% in accord with our LORD when we get to heaven. Not before. Until then we talk about them, debate them, agree/disagree. But one thing we all KNOW, without the blood of Christ, we are lost. That's the gospel, those are our "orders" (to preach the gospel, not TULIP, for example...that's an 'in house' debate).

The history of the Holy Roman Empire, or Luther in Germany, is another matter. You want to deny it, fine with me. It's history doesn't stumble me. It does others (Jews). But to deny it is anti-historic, anti-intellectual. The facts speak for themselves. But they should in no way be attributed to YOU personally, or even your Pope today. In the same way today's German Chancellor cannot be held accountable for Hitler. JMHO.

All those details of "free will", "predestination", "depravity of man" will be made completely clear and we will be 100% in accord with our LORD when we get to heaven. Not before. Until then we talk about them, debate them, agree/disagree. But one thing we all KNOW, without the blood of Christ, we are lost. That's the gospel, those are our "orders" (to preach the gospel, not TULIP, for example...that's an 'in house' debate).


Your right about Tulip I mean   to me it seems very clear in scripture to be true.

The funny thing is one a tulip believe ask me How do I preach the gospel?

I tell them jesus love them and died for them etc..... then but then they might ask but how do you know he one of the chosen ones? that you should preach you must be chosen  by God or you will go to hell.


I basic tell them I do not teach the gospel this way because I know if God wants them he will have them.

I should get in a reply to it hopefully by monday. Your post are not forgotten at all. I printed it out and will provide a reply to them. Just got alittle busy with the up coming holiday stuff. I wont have full access to use a computer until I am back homefor the amount of time it takes to reply to the post that I want to do.

The  Christian Church did not collect the OT Canon. It was Israel who was to did so. I already cited Romans 3:1-2 for this as proof. Thus you errored historically on this point. Neither Rome, Cartage of Hippo approved the same exact OT books as the Council of Trent. And I showed that the RCC itself says it defined and settled the issue in 1546ad  and not prior to it. I cited an RCC source for this. So your basically being dishonest on that point.




It refutes your position alone on this. As Trent pronounced a condemnation of those who rejected the it's OT Canon and claimed unanimous consent of the early church fathers on this. That means the Council of Trent lied and errored on that point. I am not the one who holds that the church determines and makes the canon. That is your position.

What you said totally contradictes the OT Hebrew Canon division that Jesus Christ followed. Why did Jesus follow the OT Palestian Canon listing rather than the LXX in the verse below ?

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The fact is though Jesus and the Apostles and early church used the LXX they still followed the OT Hebrew canon listing.




That is not true. Very few held that it was Scripture. It was after around 400ad where this takes place. Most rejected it prior to the claimed Councils you appealed to.Did Melito of Sardis hold to the modern Roman Catholic view point on the canon ? How about Hilary of Poitier ? Athanasius ? Cypril of Jerusamlem ? All of these pre-existed Jerome, chronologically. Did they hold to the view Rome dogmatically defined in 1546 ? Or did they hold to the Hebrew Canon ?




Most rejected it prior to around 400ad. This heavy debate took place at Trent in 1546 . And we see the RCC was trying to counter the claimes of the Reformers.