Are all Catholics lost?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Not necessarily. I suppose it depends on what. Peter and Paul had a disagreement. So did Mark and Paul and Barnabas and Paul. Make it plain evangelist.

So, Paul and Peter disagreed on doctrines of the church?

Please I'm eager to here you on this subject.

Spoon feed?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Such profuse ignorance of context blows my mind.

Ya, guess i should have checked with you before i posted the passage It is actually the competing thoughts part that i find to be most applicable, but ty for allowing me to provide you with the opportunity to polish your ego a bit more.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Ya, guess i should have checked with you before i posted the passage It is actually the competing thoughts part that i find to be most applicable, but ty for allowing me to provide you with the opportunity to polish your ego a bit more.

Polish his ego?

Who are you kidding?

Dude, the "competing thoughts part" that you find to be most applicable?

News flash!

It's not applicable, it's not about what you think, it is what the verse is saying within its context.

The "competing thoughts part" that you find to be most applicable?

Good grief, good luck with that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Ya, guess i should have checked with you before i posted the passage It is actually the competing thoughts part that i find to be most applicable, but ty for allowing me to provide you with the opportunity to polish your ego a bit more.

No. lol. Always missing the point. Anyone can quote scripture. Apply it and show context and explain why you chose that passage. Everyone should do that. I feel it my burden when discussing scripture, so should you. Why wouldn't you? Empty claims proving nothing is all that results.

Oh, right. You bolt when anyone does that, so why do it yourself?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Mike, you're a gifted writer and a good communicator. The problem is the initial evidence doctrine is a 20th century invention. You've got a good theological mind, but your system has some square pegs that have to fit in round holes, and it just doesn't work.

Bro., the only statement in the entire bible that shows any initial evidence of Spirit baptism is found in Acts 10. It's hardly 20th century in origin. However, I still leave heaven or hell up to God when it comes to those who lack that, and yet fully stand on the cross for salvation. I would not want to be in their shoes, but they're very unlike adherents to the Koran who believe a statement that blatantly denies the cross' existence.

Saying that anyone not baptized in a specific formula, and anyone not speaking in tongues is lost, simply is not consistent with the whole of scripture, and that us a problem.

Did I say that?

I sincerely cannot agree with your reasoning, though. I weighed out many things and changed many positions of belief over the 30 years I've been preaching. And I could never see justification for that reasoning that I can say they are saved. I will not say they are going to hell. But I will not say they are saved either. The apostles did not speak of hell in presenting these valid doctrinal statements. But they also never said a person was saved without them. I explain this in my book THE WAY MORE PERFECTLY. So, you're a bit offkey in assessing my position here.

It's not the formula and it's not the absence of tongues that are the issue. It's the work of the cross, how one applies that according to the apostles, and what happens when that happens. I actually know people, maybe you do as well, who knew nothing about Acts 2 and its contents and came to church and POW.... experienced the very thing Acts 2 shows.

But again, you will not see where I said they're hellbound. But the catholic church and the muslim religion and the Hindus and Buddhists are a different story I honestly think.

You bring a much more common sense approach to the conversation, but in the end you still reduce salvation to those who agree with you.

Now you changed the issue. Before it was group. Now it's belief. It should be belief. In reality, whatever someone believes is needful for salvation, which one adheres to, or else one wouldn't believe it, is obviously what one thinks others should believe. Otherwise, a person wouldn't believe it. So, that point is sort of moot. It's a given. You, yourself, apply what you believe is required for salvation. You would be a hypocrite if you did not believe those who agree with and likewise comply would be lost.

On the other hand, EB though mentally as sharp as a stick, is of the Epley, Ensey, RK Smith, Emory, and at least in spirit, Winter, and Reckhart line of hard nosed everyone who doesn't agree with me is going to hell thinking.

I like Benenicasa, but when he starts that stuff, he has to be called on it.

I do appreciate how you handle this issue in contrast to some others. (ahem). But if you think shazeep should not be called on the issue of blatant denial of the cross' very existence and yet say salvation cannot be denied due to such belief for the moment in time and space when a person denies the cross, well...

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, Paul and Peter disagreed on doctrines of the church?

Please I'm eager to here you on this subject.

Spoon feed?

Certainly, though temporarily, as per Galatians 2. You asked the question can someone disagree with Paul and be saved. If you want to be more specific, please do so.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No. lol. Always missing the point. Anyone can quote scripture. Apply it and show context and explain why you chose that passage. Everyone should do that. I feel it my burden when discussing scripture, so should you. Why wouldn't you? Empty claims proving nothing is all that results.

Oh, right. You bolt when anyone does that, so why do it yourself?

sorry, i took it as a given that you could read plain English. Bye.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

sorry, i took it as a given that you could read plain English. Bye.

Bolt away. I thought you already bolted.

Anyway, you dislike me this much, there's no sense to this left any more.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Certainly, though temporarily, as per Galatians 2. You asked the question can someone disagree with Paul and be saved. If you want to be more specific, please do so.

The foundation hadn't been finished yet, and would be finally laid when the word was completed, in their dispute. And it wasn't over word of God, since Peter knew in himself the truth of the matter, but his problem was worrying over standing for the truth according to Gal 2. How would that apply to people today who disagree with anything the apostles wrote?

[shazeep]

no, i dislike that some group exists that would actually allow someone like you to stand up in front of people and pretend to rep God. Yes, i should have had better sense than to continue to engage with someone so disingenuous and conflicted as you are, or to keep posting this late, most likely; but i at least am willing to do that count, or make that poll, whereas you are full of it, and would just punk out again. Elder. Try me, hypocrite. Loser leaves the forum; what do you say? I'll even let you pick; poll or count?