[quote:1bo3esac]Again your miss the boat by not knowing what is written in the Greek (cf the Logos vs. Rhema discussion which you ignored, without feedback from you I’m not sure if you just discount the Greek and Hebrew Text in favor of the KJV or if you just have no reply and agree that your interpretation was wrong?). [/quote:1bo3esac]
This is how thick the deception is! You say I’m wrong because I don’t know or haven’t looked at the languages? Well there is one problem with taking you at your word –
[quote:1bo3esac]The unbeliever is one who has not been incorporated into the Church through baptism.[/quote:1bo3esac]
Baptism saves no one – Why do I say that? Titus 3:5 tells us – [color=red:1bo3esac] [u:1bo3esac][b:1bo3esac]not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us[/b:1bo3esac][/u:1bo3esac], through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,[/color:1bo3esac] Yes 1 Peter 3:21 tells us “There is also an antitype which now saves us baptism” but look at the verse before it , we see that verse 20 says – [quote:1bo3esac]while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.[/quote:1bo3esac] and 21 ends up with [color=red:1bo3esac][u:1bo3esac][b:1bo3esac] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/b:1bo3esac][/u:1bo3esac][/color:1bo3esac] In other words, we are saved by Christ’s death and resurrection not the identifying act of baptism which would be something one could boast about having done which would also be against Ephesians 2:8,9. (The water never saved anyone in the flood either but the Ark did – a picture of those “in Christ”) Yes I am attempting to be civil, now the question is how will you react? (Never be a Catholic again)
Marriage forms a sacramental, therefore undesolvable union (except by the death of one) when two baptized persons are married. If one is a baptized Christian and marries someone who is not the two cannot form a spiritual union, but only a civil contract which by it’s nature is not undesolvable. Yup I know you don’t believe in Baptism giving any grace or having an effect on the soul, but then again, that denyal of the effects of baptism is something that only came into being with the Anabaptists in the 15th Century. (As an aside, Anabatists where slaughtered by the thousands by “Bible Believing Protestants” who disagreed with them because they where looked upon as heretical by their fellow Protestants.) What you are referring to is referred to historically as the Pauline Privilage, when two pagans convert they can either have the marriage dissolved, and are free to remarry, or when only one converts. [/quote:1bo3esac]
Although this is what you claim to be historical – It is not Biblical thus I reject it as I’ve shown you what Paul writes!
[quote:1bo3esac]The second “acception” that you mention is also problematic for you, once again it is a problem of the english translation. The Infidelity refers to Pre-marital sexual relations not unfaithfulness during a marriage. If you want to know what the Word of God says, you have to look at the texts in the Hebrew and Greek. While Popes have encouraged the study of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures form the backbone of Catholic Liturgical life, the Protestant idea that everyone can become his own Pope and interpret the Scriptures themselves is the cause of chaos rather than unity in the Body of Christ. [/quote:1bo3esac]
The problem is more then just my idea that I can become my own pope.
We are invited to go to Jesus – no educated or highly educated – Jesus did not set that as a requirement but only that we know His word (how often He said “you error not knowing Scriptures” Matthew 22:29) Furthermore
I disagree with your submittion or my failing to submit to a pope as rejecting Christ for two reasons – It is a form of what Revelation 2:15 tells us [color=red:1bo3esac]15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate[/color:1bo3esac] and Dave Hunt’s book “a woman rides the beast” shows is a joke. I’m sure you do not approve of Mr Hunt but I’ve talked to him personally and I know HE is correct!
I’ll reply to part two in a couple of days, countdown 2 hrs 10 minutes to Chemo number one, so I will have to see what if any reaction I have. But now that you are attempting to be civil, even if you reject what has been taught for 2000 years, and refuse to look into the original texts rather than a translation, (something you could do, and I would reccomend if you really want to discuss the Scriptures in depth and accuratly, although it would probably end up making you a Catholic again.)[/quote:1bo3esac]
It won’t happen.