Results 81 - 100 of 101
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132412 | ||
Dear Tim, I still have to conclude that A.T.Robertson’s peculiar rendition remains eccentric as no English translation of the Bible (I’m aware of adopts it) adopts it, even the Baptist / evangelical versions such as my NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, viz. the work of hundreds of Greek scholars goes against A.T.Robertson's translation. I believe this ultimately puts the burden of proof on you. Yours in Christ, Dalcent P.S. I did go to the trouble of reading this: http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Robertson2-38.html |
||||||
82 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132344 | ||
This remains very convoluted and sounds like an interpretation. The theologically Baptist 'Optimal Equivalence' HCSB doesn't chose to translate the verse in this way and they have a lot of Greek experts too. Can Robertson's logic be applied to Acts 22:16. Does his 'unbiased' reasoning lead to the conclusion he was after. In other words is he just a man with an agenda. Respectfully, Dalcent |
||||||
83 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132341 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism doesn't save us by 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' but only with 'an appeal to God'. Baptism and belief save, not baptism. It I baptise a unwilling unbeliever in some water the only effect will be 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' 'Baptismal regeneration' tends to be used as a perjorative as it doesn't emphasis that faith is needed too. Come on, I don't accept Luke 18:13, is the born-again sinner's prayer. Do you? Best Regards |
||||||
84 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132333 | ||
Hi there Tim, I have a limited knowledge of Greek, however none of my 14 Bible translations has chosen to translate the verse as you describe. Plus it is only one of many similar verses. I actually wrote my posting when I discovered the literal translation (in an Interlinear NT) of Titus 3:5 was the 'bath of regeneration' which certainly sounds like more like baptism then anything else. I have a library of the teachings of the Church fathers and baptismal regeneration has been the historic teaching of the same Churches (Catholic/Orthodox) whose ecumenical councils gave us the great Trinitarian and Christological formulas we all hold to. I would be interested in the theological history of the sinner's prayer doctrine. I would appreciate knowing when this doctrine "reappeared" in Christian history. Best Wishes |
||||||
85 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132326 | ||
Of course! and the whole of creation is now exalted to a new glory by this unique event. And to be deliberately controversial I will cite God using (viz. imbuing mere matter with powerful spiritual reality) "relics": Elisha's bones to raise a corpse (2 Kgs 13:20-21) Elijah's mantle to divide water (2 Kgs 2:14) And Paul's clothing healing the sick (Acts 19:11f). |
||||||
86 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132321 | ||
Dear BradK I recently responded to a post (my first for a long time) saying 'What constitutes a christian marraige?Do people who marry in a Catholic churchand later become christian in acceptanceof Jesus Christ for salvation are they married in the eyes of God?If yes why are the other six sacraments not accepted as surely if one is wrong they all are.Should these people have their marraige santified by an evangelical ceremony etc to be valid in the eyes of God?' I responded by asserting my belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour and posted some paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Nicene Creed to prove to Moey that I am a Christian. I was then asked whether I knew if I was saved. I responded basing my response on the Cross of Christ. At this point I was assailed by a vicious anti-Catholicism, or an ugly display of Catholic bashing as Hank the Baptist put it. So yes, several people did claim I was not a Christian! I removed my Profile's reference to having recently completed my MA in Catholic Theology - this month in fact, it was pretty fresh in my mind - and will write a more modest or humble profile soon. I see no reason not to debate deep theological issues in a forum environment. Is the forum meant to discuss biblical triva or simply be a mutual agreement society. It is doubtful whether one can accurately judge "tone" in a posting. Dalcent |
||||||
87 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132307 | ||
Don't give me ‘the thief on the cross wasn't baptised’ objection because frankly an exception proves nothing. God can save who he wills and baptism (even where only an ordinance) is obviously normative for Christians. The Catholic Church has always recognized the ‘baptism of desire.’ Nevertheless, bi-millennial Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has always recognized that baptism is the normal entry into the Christian-fold and is for the remission of sins (as in the Nicene creed and other creeds) I appreciate that some cannot accept plain, literal readings of scripture, because they believe their fundamental slant on theology is 'definitely correct' and verses not fitting such as ‘be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...’ (Acts 2:38) need allegorising, “metaphoricalising”, spiritualising, call it what you fancy: I call it not rightly dividing the word of truth. My conclusion, is that some understandings of Christian theology cannot accept that God uses matter (in this case, the WATER of baptism) to impart spiritual realities. They prefer to think God sends His grace through the spiritual dimension only. Their fear, is that if God exalts matter in this way, it makes water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. something ‘magical’. However, I believe that not only is this sacramental view (that God uses physical matter imbued with spiritual realities as avenues of His grace) ubiquitously biblical but it is also entirely fitting. God chooses to deal with human beings in this way because has created us with both spirituality and materiality. To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
88 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131773 | ||
Isn't it interesting that the ignorant Catholic basher is grammatically ignorant too. God's son you are practically illiterate! Are you aware that there are about 100 spelling mistakes in your posting. You seem to have more against capital letters than you have against the pope. |
||||||
89 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131722 | ||
Chick Publications! That says it all. Don't you know his website claims all non-KJV Bibles are demonic. | ||||||
90 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131721 | ||
Gods son, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Peter and Rock are the same word in Aramaic: Kepha. |
||||||
91 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131719 | ||
Dear gods son, I live in London near the Tyburn Convent. It is built near the Tyburn fields where hundreds of Catholic missionaries to England from the time of Henry VIII were murdered for preaching the apostolic faith. I am not offended by your ignorance. |
||||||
92 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131717 | ||
You wrote: rome has no time for your faith and you are outside of the one true church as they state and are doomed to hell by them Yet the Catholic Catechism, the Church's authoritative statement of faith, states: 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." You have been lied to by your silly anti-Catholic comics. |
||||||
93 | They were not born again at time of marr | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131715 | ||
This is does not resemble a prayer; where is the example of the prayer born-again Christians say you must pray? Perhaps presented in a similar manner to the Lord's prayer, i.e. pray this and you'll be born again? | ||||||
94 | They were not born again at time of marr | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131697 | ||
"Well documented" by the Church's fundamentalist enemies, viz. one-sided slander. Hence the title of my post 'Have you read any book by Catholics!'. |
||||||
95 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131622 | ||
With due respect I think Calvinist evangelical theology is scripturally selective and mistaken in its conclusions, so of course lots of verses including 1 Cor 1:18 don't fit. |
||||||
96 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131579 | ||
I have read your interesting profile. How you have been given a spirit of understanding! You write: 'I would challenge all to test me. I do not claim to know it all where the Word is concerned, but what I do know, I know to be FACT.' This is a ridiculous and pompous claim. When people make claims that only the KJV and the NIV are inspired versions and others are tools of the enemy you declare yourself to be nuts! What about the NASB and the ESV? What is your interpretation of James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. The NIV is definitely not an inspired translation "For example, the NIV, translates the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine. The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation." Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered." |
||||||
97 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131575 | ||
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. | ||||||
98 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131566 | ||
Dear GB, It is biblical to confess your sins to one another. James 5:16 The objection that only God can forgive sins was made by a Pharisee. You cannot make a doctrine out of such verses. John 20:23 was spoken specifically to the apostles. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained. You think this has no connection to confession practised in the Catholic and Orthodox Church for 2,000 years? What is your interpretation of John 20:23? Are you claiming that all scripture invariably applies specifically to you. Woman why are you weeping? (Jn. 20:15). If you can't "see" the plain sense of John 20:23 perhaps you are wearing denominational spectacles when you read the Bible. |
||||||
99 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131565 | ||
Hi there BradK, My posting 'How am I saved?' was in response to CDBJ's query that I understood how I was saved; no doubt he regarded me a little suspiciously as I stated I was a Catholic. I think the debate has shifted a little from the are Catholics Christian to more of a Calvinism/Arminianism debate. I would query some of your quotes. Why does 'It is finished!' (Jn. 19:30) necessarily mean all our sins past, present and future are forgiven. Jesus was perhaps referring to His suffering. (Note that it says He was raised for our justification in Rom. 4:25. So there is one aspect that was not finished.) You have extrapolated your past, present and future doctrine from a verse which does not explicitly say anything of the kind. What do you think "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Eph. 4:32" proves? Where is any hint here of anything more than God has forgiven you your sins so far. There is nothing explicit here to affirm your doctrine. Likewise, most of your quotes just say God forgave you, you never produce a quote that explicitly mentions forgiveness of sins you will commit in the future. I take specific issue with, "All the Pauline verses denote a past action, which is complete, carrying forward to the present time." What nonsense! (Furthermore, what about future sins.) Paul writes: "...but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Cor 1:18, ie we are not saved yet. How can you logically retort 'It is finished!' to me; it is simply a non sequitur (an inference not warrantable from the premises). You write 'Surely you're not advocating any self-effort on my part?' Well Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:27 '...I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.' That sounds like self-effort to me. Read the Bible with an open mind, not a closed system. |
||||||
100 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131501 | ||
I agree with your last sentence entirely. However, what about my question: Have you read any books by Catholics? I've read all the anti-Catholic stuff, Babylon Mystery Religion, Woman rides the Beast, etc. Even if you don't come to agree with the Catholic positions, it would be scholarly if you knew the true Catholic postions not just some fundamentalist polemic. What about Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism Ignatius Press. P.S. I'm an intercessor between God and man too, because I'm praying for you. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |