jaybird18c

Using the term in the sense of adhering to biblical doctrine. Not in the sense of describing a particular church. The term is still used correctly in the context in which I used it.

This is lengthy but extremely informative concerning the Roman Catholic belief system and its radical differences with orthodox Christianity. Worth the read. It's a transcript from a lecture on the topic by Dr. John MacArthur. You can also listen to the. .mp3 on his website. It illustrates just how heretical their system has really become. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-291_The-Pope-and-the-Papacy?q=pope+and+papacy]The Pope and the Papacy

Grow up.....drink Coke!

One of my favorite sections of scripture:

The Mayflower Compact was covanantal in nature (a biblical concept). Sure, this country was also settled (maybe even primarily out of business motives) however, it's hard to deny the heavily religious influence. Our founding fathers certainly did not intend a theocracy, but religion was always integrated in government. That's not to say an establishment of religion but definitely not elimination of it from government. That would be a very revisionist view of history indeed.

Well...it's a new day.....you can resume flag burning and criticizing those who protect you.

I have to respectively disagree with this also. Nothing personal brother. We, in no way, can claim to be gods, equal woth God, even through faith in Christ. We, as believers, are "seen" as righteous because of wbat Jesus did in our place...but nothing more. That doesn't mean that we are righteous in and of ourselves, it does not buy us equality, and it certainly doesn't make us "little gods" in any way, shape, or fashion. I think you were trying to find common ground with him using semantics but it's wrong. The transaction that took place has to do with justification. Our justification changes how we're seen before God but nothing more.

I agree. Good point! But many people do create "g"ods in their own images.

OR...YOU COULD JUST SAY THANK YOU.

I provided a link to the source. No, I did not come up with the addition, subtraction, multiplication, division analogy. Clete Hux from the Apologetics Resource Center (ARC) in Birmingham, AL did. I've heard him in person before. He is extremely good on the topic. The link (I provided) points to a conversation between Clete and Dr. Harry Reeder (Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, AL).

Signs of a Cult (who claim to be Christian but depart from essentials of Christianity) 1. Addition - Add to Bible as their authoritative source; extrabiblical authority (e.g. Book of Mormon) 2. Subtraction - Take away from the person of Jesus Christ; deny His divinity; make Him into "just a man" or angel; just a good "teacher of morality" 3. Multiplication - Multiplying requirements for salvation; works and not "faith alone" 4. Division - Drive divisive wedge between loyalty to God's word and loyalty to what the leader says; loyalty to the Church of believers in Christ versus loyalty to the leader's "earthly family." In any case, the attack from non-believers and cults usually begins with the attack on the authenticity, authoritative nature, and sufficiency of scripture....it then is directed squarely at denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and the nature of His saving work on the cross. Below is an excellent discussion on the topic: "Cults, Occult, Religion, Christ" - Apologetics Resource Center (ARC), Birmingham, AL

"De Oppresso Liber"

It means that only the Lord determines the standard of righteousness...not you...or me. It anyone is going to be saved, it will be worked out by Him alone. Then you are radically out of line with what the scriptures say concerning the doctrine of man and salvation and are very much in the realm of non-Christian cult thinking. The first three chapters of Romans does nothing but establish the total depravity of man and his need for salvation. (Particularly Romans 3:23-26). I have no idea how any professing Christian can just read the Bible and not at least grasp the theme from Genesis to Revelation. I can understand a non-Christian not believing it...but even he/she can usually read what it says.

Exactly right Max!

Salvation belongs to the Lord. (Psalm 3:8)

I disagree with this kid and the whole situation but this is exactly why all three of my children are in private Christian school. The state government and the ACLU can both shove it!

Do you think this is anything new? Do you think the two supposedly differing accounts surprised the early Church Fathers or do you think it made perfect sense to them as it was written? These are very very tired old arguments against the validity of Scripture. Nothing new that hasn't been handled over and over a very long time ago.

Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts?

Who cares?

Really Kallend? That's your point? Of course none of those things are specifically addressed in the Bible. Countless other yhings aren't specifically mentioned by name. That's not how it works. Principals are derived from Scripture which can then be applied to everyday situations (depending on the context).

Too late. Jaybird already sent Anne Frank to hell. I really wish you wouldn't misrepresent what I say.

With regard to the Creeds, an argument from exclusion isn't a good one. The question isn't what the Creeds say or do not say with regard to hell. The question is what do the Scriptures say about a particular subject. The Creeds are only beneficial in as far as they line up with and help the Christian understand Scripture. I say the Creeds you mentioned most certainly do for what they describe. Is the doctrine of reprobation an essential belief concerning salvation? You could argue that it is not, however, it certainly informs you what you were saved from. Wouldn't make much sense without it.

no it didn't. And that is your religion.

Fixed it for you... I don't require your help Steve.