JesusFreakz! (1 Viewer)

[xo NoFear xo]

saved by grace alone...cum n chat bout the wonderful honour 2 call Him king

 

[biggles04]

...George Bush is my one and only god

 

[xo NoFear xo]

lol alritey then... i hope he gives u the joy and happiness ya need xo lol hey biggles, excuse my complete ignorance but wat duz ur name mean? itz veri cute (unique)
ps. do u rekon George Bush will save u wen u die???

 

[snapperhead]

saved by grace alone...cum n chat bout the wonderful honour 2 call Him king

besides the awful typing (and its ensuing sub text), your statement alienates a large number (statistically the largest number in both Australia and the world) of Christians...thats not very nice now is it?

 

[xo NoFear xo]

besides the awful typing (and its ensuing sub text), your statement alienates a large number (statistically the largest number in both Australia and the world) of Christians...thats not very nice now is it?

how does saying that alienate christianz???

 

[acmilan]

Who do you think are the largest proportion of Christians? "Saved by grace alone" would be your problem im guessing. Noooo you have alienated me!!!

 

[snapperhead]

how does saying that alienate christianz???

saved by grace alone....

learn some theology and you will understand why Catholics would disagree with this ie this is Reformation thinking instituted by Luther and promulgated by Calvin et al and is the backbone (ie faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone) of the Protestant Church and its theology!!



@ac...you beat me to it!!

I feel so alienated...I cop it at work now here....

 

[acmilan]

learn some theology and you will understand why Catholics would disagree with this ie this is Reformation thinking instituted by Luther and promulgated by Calvin et al and is the backbone (ie faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone) of the Protestant Church and its theology!!



@ac...you beat me to it!!

I feel so alienated...I cop it at work now here....

Sorry snapperhead

 

[snapperhead]

Sorry snapperhead

No need to apologise as us tykes have gotta stick up for our rights against the B.B.F's!!


lol...oh dear, I can see this causing some trouble....

 

[xo NoFear xo]

itz not wat man i.e calvin and luther, say that should govern our thinking... just the Bible...& of course you're not trying 2 alienate me r u?
may i say catholicz have a different source of authority so we may well up never agreeing because there might not be a common reference point.

 

[acmilan]

Calvin and Luther were the ones that suggested protestant thinking, that it should only be the Bible. We are not alienating you, just saying you shouldnt refer to things as if they are unified Christian beliefs as there are differences in beliefs

 

[snapperhead]

itz not wat man i.e calvin and luther, say that should govern our thinking... just the Bible...& of course you're not trying 2 alienate me r u?
may i say catholicz have a different source of authority so we may well up never agreeing because there might not be a common reference point.

there is actually a common reference point (ie the title of this thread..though I personally dont like the term 'JesusFreakz' because of the spelling and the concept that is usually associated with it...+ Im sure being a freak about something isnt the best way to describe yourself...maybe Im wrong..) but what you mentioned isnt a 'Christian' belief (the grace alone stuff) ie isnt what we Catholics would call dogma..dont think it even qualifies as doctrine?? Maybe....

LOL...just in a picky mood

 

[xo NoFear xo]

Calvin and Luther were the ones that suggested protestant thinking, that it should only be the Bible. We are not alienating you, just saying you shouldnt refer to things as if they are unified Christian beliefs as there are differences in beliefs

Thanks for your reply - it wasn't my intention to alienate you either. I guess the problem would come down to "If the Bible makes one statement re: the basis for salvation (e.g. Eph.2:8-10 or the book of Galatians, or 1John on assurance) & a church says the opposite, which will you follow?"
Luther & Calvin ( on the "grace through faith alone producing good works as the necessary outcome" issue) claimed to be in line with Church Fathers such as Augustine (of secondary authority) & the New Testament (e.g. Paul). On the "Scripture alone" issue there were groups (e.g. Waldensians) who came & went down through history who took the Bible as at least primary authority.
i dont expect u to agree but just clarrifying what i was saying

 

[xo NoFear xo]

there is actually a common reference point (ie the title of this thread..though I personally dont like the term 'JesusFreakz' because of the spelling and the concept that is usually associated with it...+ Im sure being a freak about something isnt the best way to describe yourself...maybe Im wrong..) but what you mentioned isnt a 'Christian' belief (the grace alone stuff) ie isnt what we Catholics would call dogma..dont think it even qualifies as doctrine?? Maybe....

LOL...just in a picky mood

I agree ... unless you've heard the song "JesusFreaK" by DC Talk then it kinda comes across as "irreverent" - you're not picky, I should've put more thought into the title sorry

 

[snapperhead]

Thanks for your reply - it wasn't my intention to alienate you either. I guess the problem would come down to "If the Bible makes one statement re: the basis for salvation (e.g. Eph.2:8-10 or the book of Galatians, or 1John on assurance) & a church says the opposite, which will you follow?"

I wouldn't say any Christian church says the opposite to what is in the bible...its more a matter of interpretation (and the motivation for this interpretation) and no, this isn't a Catholic/Protestant thing (note: I work in an Anglican/evangelical school and see this every day and it makes me laugh as its just wrong). Point in case re interpretation of scripture are all the splits that have haunted the Protestant Church as a body...I mean, even look at the different translations of the bible that are available and the differences between this 'editions' eg to use one of your refences (Galatians) and its use of the word gospel when the gospels (both the four as we know them-keeping in mind that are dozens of gospels in existence- plus the actual term as such) did not exist at the time that Galatians was written by Paul. Even the Eph. quote is often used to villify the notion of noble works or doing the right thing as it was an old Christian (read very old-early church old) notion (that resurfaced in the corruption of the pre-reformation church) that you did good things to go to heaven (not that being nice to people is a bad thing!!) but when you read it in its context, Paul is telling gentiles (converts to christianity I mean) about the notion of what christianity is about ie that you shouldnt be converting just to get to heaven as good deeds alone wont work... (eph 2:11),....again, interpretation or selective use?

Luther & Calvin ( on the "grace through faith alone producing good works as the necessary outcome" issue) claimed to be in line with Church Fathers such as Augustine (of secondary authority) & the New Testament (e.g. Paul). On the "Scripture alone" issue there were groups (e.g. Waldensians) who came & went down through history who took the Bible as at least primary authority.
i dont expect u to agree but just clarrifying what i was saying

are you saying that you disagree with Lutheran and Calvinist views re the bible?...seems contradictory + all Christian groups see the bible as primary authority (I cant think of one group that wouldn't except for the Mormons but thats another story). Again, its interpretation and to be honest, how the "interpreter" intends to use the text e.g the quotes you used. Are they ones you are intimately familiar with or did you grab them off the net/from a book/ from your minister ?(ie they are someone elses 'interpretation?)
->I am seriously curious as I find it interesting when ppl quote the bible to prove a point/s (note I am not having a go/calling into context your intelligence or faith or anything like that)

its late and my mind is wandering...sorry if none of this makes sense

 

[xo NoFear xo]

I wouldn't say any Christian church says the opposite to what is in the bible...its more a matter of interpretation (and the motivation for this interpretation) and no, this isn't a Catholic/Protestant thing (note: I work in an Anglican/evangelical school and see this every day and it makes me laugh as its just wrong). Point in case re interpretation of scripture are all the splits that have haunted the Protestant Church as a body...I mean, even look at the different translations of the bible that are available and the differences between this 'editions' eg to use one of your refences (Galatians) and its use of the word gospel when the gospels (both the four as we know them-keeping in mind that are dozens of gospels in existence- plus the actual term as such) did not exist at the time that Galatians was written by Paul. Even the Eph. quote is often used to villify the notion of noble works or doing the right thing as it was an old Christian (read very old-early church old) notion (that resurfaced in the corruption of the pre-reformation church) that you did good things to go to heaven (not that being nice to people is a bad thing!!) but when you read it in its context, Paul is telling gentiles (converts to christianity I mean) about the notion of what christianity is about ie that you shouldnt be converting just to get to heaven as good deeds alone wont work... (eph 2:11),....again, interpretation or selective use?
are you saying that you disagree with Lutheran and Calvinist views re the bible?...seems contradictory + all Christian groups see the bible as primary authority (I cant think of one group that wouldn't except for the Mormons but thats another story). Again, its interpretation and to be honest, how the "interpreter" intends to use the text e.g the quotes you used. Are they ones you are intimately familiar with or did you grab them off the net/from a book/ from your minister ?(ie they are someone elses 'interpretation?)
->I am seriously curious as I find it interesting when ppl quote the bible to prove a point/s (note I am not having a go/calling into context your intelligence or faith or anything like that)

its late and my mind is wandering...sorry if none of this makes sense

Thanks for the kind reply. Sorry if I came across hazy. In my effort not to hold up Luther & Calvin as final authorities over Scripture I kind of left it vague as to whether I agreed with them or not. I do agree with them overall but I'm trying to say that I agree with them on the basis of the Bible rather than blindly say "because they say something then it must be right."
RE: the primary/secondary authority issue. I was trying to point out that Luther & Calvin were at pains to explain that they were trying to reform the Catholic Church not break away like some sect or cult. So they quoted from the early Fathers to show that what they were saying wasn't unique. But they claimed Scripture as their final authority.
The Mormons claim the Bible has mistakes (was corrupted) & so the Book of Mormon is their final authority ... but when I've asked them to show where the Bible is corrupted their missionaries haven't been able to say. (they try to avoid that line of conversation).
Re: Bible versions - can you name one (apart from the Jehoveh Witness New World "Translation" which is an interpretation, not a linguistic translation of the Greek NT) which actually contradicts a doctrine of the mainline protestant faith? I'd be interested if you can find one. The multiplying of versions is at times a money making exercise & partly due to the ongoing struggle to find the right balance between a more literally "word for word" translation as against one that flows well in modern English but sometimes at the expense of precision (e.g. they make a well meaning effort to explain difficult passages, or remove hard to understand ancient figures of speech - e.g. in Romans do you translate "sarx" literally as "flesh" or help the reader by using the term "sinful nature"?).
Just to "put my money where my mouth is" on my claim that mainline translations are essentially not in disagreement on any doctrinal point, I've got a Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) & I have no problems with it - it's a faithful translation(don't necessarily agree with the footnotes!).
Re: the divisions amongst Christians - even under the Catholic umbrella there's a lot of diversity/disagreement. But on the issues of the authority of the Bible as THE source for belief & the doctrine of salvation being tied to trust in Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins alone, you'll find protestants will agree & will recognise one another's communion. ( accept one another as brothers & sisters in Christ). If a Catholic says "I trust in Christ as my only source of salvation through His sacrifice on the cross for my sins" then I accept him or her as well.
I don't want to win anybody over to my church as such but to put their trust in Jesus as Saviour & Lord of their life.
I'm getting foggy in the head as well ... thanks again!

 

[xo NoFear xo]

oops ... sorry! I got my dad to help out with the reply to your questions as it got real late last night - thought I'd better mention that "snapperhead"!

 

[pam17]

The biggest thing that offends me about NoFear's post (not to mention signature) is the spelling. Is it harder to press the S key than the Z key?