Search results

You assume, of course, that being on the membership roles makes you a Christian. Since the false doctrine of salvation by baptism is taught in your church there are literally millions who are dead in their sins who have been baptized in your church. Such knowledge should frighten you when you...

I am not making the claim you are asserting that I make. Therefore you are confused and are rejecting a phantom claim you have created, not me. My point is that you cannot coerce God to action by performing a ceremony. Nowhere in the Bible do we observe an unrepentant sinner receiving communion...

You aren't forgiven because you receive communion or are baptized. Just as in the Gospels, only God can forgive sin. You cannot coerce God to do this. You can't perform a ceremony and "poof" you are therefore forgiven. I reject your works based theology that is synergist in form and substance.

I suggest you look up the Evangelical Free Church, a denomination that is much larger than the Lutheran denomination in the US. Second, your question was what churches do not teach "means of grace" via communion and baptism. You asked me to list them. I did. Please don't attempt to move the...

Baptists, Methodists, Weslyans, Nazarenes, Mennonites, Free Church, Christian Missionary Alliance, Plymouth Brethren, Independent Fundamental Church of America, Assembly of God, etc.

Most/Many denominations do think along the lines I stated. Only those who kept a foot in Rome hold to the idea that you baptize the unsaved in hopes that God might save them. As for communion, those who are not members are forbidden to partake (closed communion) so it truly becomes odd that...

None of the above are means of grace. We can and should do all the above. God is not obligated to show saving grace in any of those activities. It would be foolish to call them a means of grace. They are however a means of learning more about God. How a person responds to that information is...

We obey Jesus command line when we partake in communion. Communion is not a "do this and then you will receive" conditional action. Communion is a celebratory remembrance of Christ's already accomplished work. It is very similar to the Jewish Passover celebration that God established with...

George, if is means is then you is a cannibal. [emoji44][emoji16] Clearly Jesus is not teaching cannibalism. Like much of his teaching he is creating imagery to convey the substitutionary atonement provided to his elect. Paul expresses this exchanged life in Galatians 2:20.

With respect, your link is a philosophical argument based on presuppositions with no actual biblical support. Do you have a theological argument rather than a philosophical argument?

I believe we should look at what the Bible says and acknowledge that Jesus often used metaphors and analogies. So, if you intend to be entirely literal, do so with everything Jesus said, not just when it's convenient. Otherwise the context determines the interpretation. I have addressed the...

Ms Lammchen, I know better than you what I meant by the term. Your disagreement with my use of terms is due to your interpretation, not because I used the term to flame someone. So please refrain from telling me what my intent was with the words I chose.

That IS the theology we are discussing. If "is means is" then real human flesh and real human blood is the literal interpretation of those passages. You can't side-step and still say "is means is." So, theologically, the bread cannot literally be Jesus flesh, nor can the wine literally be Jesus...

It is, in this case, a description of the narrow view held by Josiah in the passages talking about the Lord's Supper. It is not used in the context you have interpreted it to mean.

Again, you are being extremely literal and narrow minded in your position. I doubt you hold such narrow-minded and extreme literal interpretation with all of the Bible. Yet, here, when Jesus is talking to Jewish men who continually reject the drinking or eating of blood, you demand that your...

Did Jesus literally give his disciples his own flesh and blood for the meal? I think it's as simple as that. Of course there was no human flesh or human blood for the disciples to eat. Jesus was using a metaphor that the Jewish disciples understood in that particular meal.

This is a logically false question. We have no idea if others didn't take it literally. Why? Because there is a limited number of extant documents to work from. The only thing you can say is that the limited documents available seem to promote real flesh and real blood. What we have, which is...

That is you. You pick and choose what you take literally and what you don't take literally. In this instance, I argue that the context of the Last Supper makes it clear that Jesus is not being literal.

George makes an assumption that the bread becomes the real flesh of Jesus and the wine becomes the real blood of Jesus in his title. He asks how it becomes... My answer is that it doesn't become. It isn't necessary to become. It never became when Jesus was in the upper room. Real presence of...

God can forgive and bring us remembrance without the bread and wine becoming the human flesh and human blood of Jesus. Your argument of 1500 years of doing some tradition is irrelevant. The text of the Bible supercedes your traditions. When scripture shows your traditions to be wrong...you...