# The Protestant Church is a whore.



## rembrandt (May 16, 2004)

I love the church. I embrace the church. I abide in the church. But the bride of Christ is a whore. It is filthy rotten. We are slackers. We are schismatics. Look at the Protestant church today. Despising the sacraments. Treating holy things with contempt. Denominations are God's judgment upon a sickened creature. Every denomination I can think of is ultimately worthless. Vain religion is the theme of most Christian churches.

The church of the Reformation is no better. The early church was caught in all kinds of false teaching. The church of the OT has been divorced from God. What are we left with?

The church is ultimately worthless, save the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ. The struggle of the invisible church is what has kept any sort of life active in a dark world. The professors of religion are doomed for destruction, what church will not be thrown into the pit? Except those who know the blood song of the Lamb. 

I am going to be in repentance over a sickened church for the following weeks. I say this because I am struggling with the doctrine and practice of my local church. But despite of that, I love her. She is more precious than gold. Being perfected into the perfect bride. 

O God, may you marry this whore to yourself based on the eternal righteousness of your Son. I am in awe that you have still made us spotless as such despite of our stain.

Rembrandt


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2004)

[quote:b82cebdc54][i:b82cebdc54]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b82cebdc54]
eeeps! [/quote:b82cebdc54]
A profound response Paul :thumbup:

Other Paul,
What has happened recently to provoke such a negative view of the church? I can identify with your struggle, believe me. But, I think these struggles in the church are all part of the testing and refining of God's church so that the Gospel is preserved and the faithful remain dependent upon Christ, not upon the Church.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## ChristianasJourney (May 16, 2004)

I think it's a mistake to call the Bride of Christ a &quot;whore&quot;. And I find it offensive...perhaps I should examine my attitude, or perhaps we should examine what constitutes the Bride of Christ.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. But the Church, and the &quot;protestant church&quot; is not one and the same. The Church is composed of believers, of those who are redeemed, whether they be members of the Protestant church or the Catholic church or whether they were from the early church. The churches of today, whether they're prebs. or baptist, or reformed, are often composed of and have many charlatans, and false teachers among their midst. It is not these churches that form the Bride of Christ, but it is the individuals whose heart has been turned from a life of sin who are the Church, the Bride of Christ.

We are all sinners, we are all whores, we are all prostitutes that have been redeemed from the muck that we loved. However, if AFTER we've been redeemed and are a member of the Church and are part of the Bride of Christ, we continue to live a life of whoredom, we really must ask ourselves if we have been saved at all. Because Jesus is bringing to himself a spotless and holy bride.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## Gregg (May 16, 2004)

[quote:11f2365950][i:11f2365950]Originally posted by ChristianasJourney[/i:11f2365950]
I think it's a mistake to call the Bride of Christ a &quot;whore&quot;. And I find it offensive...perhaps I should examine my attitude, or perhaps we should examine what constitutes the Bride of Christ.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. But the Church, and the &quot;protestant church&quot; is not one and the same. The Church is composed of believers, of those who are redeemed, whether they be members of the Protestant church or the Catholic church or whether they were from the early church. The churches of today, whether they're prebs. or baptist, or reformed, are often composed of and have many charlatans, and false teachers among their midst. It is not these churches that form the Bride of Christ, but it is the individuals whose heart has been turned from a life of sin who are the Church, the Bride of Christ.

We are all sinners, we are all whores, we are all prostitutes that have been redeemed from the muck that we loved. However, if AFTER we've been redeemed and are a member of the Church and are part of the Bride of Christ, we continue to live a life of whoredom, we really must ask ourselves if we have been saved at all. Because Jesus is bringing to himself a spotless and holy bride.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by ChristianasJourney] [/quote:11f2365950]

Reply...:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Craig (May 16, 2004)

I think we can describe the church as a &quot;whore&quot;...but not without judging ourselves, too. God spoke to His prophets describing Israel as such.

However, care must be taken when saying this much. WE are part of the invisible church. I believe denominations, while many resulted because of schismatics, many more separated themselves and formed a new denom to preserve the purity of the gospel or because of some gross, unrepentant sin of their parent denom.



Be careful in your zeal that you are not neglecting grace.


----------



## Len (May 16, 2004)

It reminds me of an illustration used against those who say they are followers of Christ yet they don't attend church for whatever reason. I don't remember who said it, but basically a Christian was told by someone that they loved Christ, but couldn't stand His followers, or the church.

The Christian responded that that would be like telling me you love me yet you think my wife is a whore. One of the fruits of the Spirit is a love for the brethren, and though the church is far from perfect she is His bride. I can't imagine anyone calling my wife a whore then expect to have any sort of relationship with me. As much as I love my wife I imagine it doesn't surpass the zeal Christ has for His bride.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by Len]


----------



## rembrandt (May 16, 2004)

I actually have a high view of the church. Whatever the church says is binding. And the invisible church is infallible (in a way).

[quote:6f942b9867]However, if AFTER we've been redeemed and are a member of the Church and are part of the Bride of Christ, we continue to live a life of whoredom, we really must ask ourselves if we have been saved at all. Because Jesus is bringing to himself a spotless and holy bride.[/quote:6f942b9867]

Does the church have inherited righteousness, or the covering of atonement? The regenerate state does not equal guiltlessness.

[quote:6f942b9867]What has happened recently to provoke such a negative view of the church?[/quote:6f942b9867]

Looking around.

[quote:6f942b9867]But, I think these struggles in the church are all part of the testing and refining of God's church so that the Gospel is preserved and the faithful remain dependent upon Christ, not upon the Church.[/quote:6f942b9867]

true. true.

[quote:6f942b9867]I think we can describe the church as a &quot;whore&quot;...but not without judging ourselves, too. God spoke to His prophets describing Israel as such.[/quote:6f942b9867]

I am trying to remember the theologian that says we are whores, I know he is Reformed.

In the midst of this, the church is upholding the truth in the world. Without us, I am scared to know what the world would look like. 

The church is an illegitamate step-child that just happened to be adopted by grace. The church is the dispenser of grace into the world. I love her, and I feed off of her. She is the source of my salvation, without her there would be none. 

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 16, 2004)

[quote:ea2486be22][i:ea2486be22]Originally posted by Len[/i:ea2486be22]
It reminds me of an illustration used against those who say they are followers of Christ yet they don't attend church for whatever reason. I don't remember who said it, but basically a Christian was told by someone that they loved Christ, but couldn't stand His followers, or the church.

The Christian responded that that would be like telling me you love me yet you think my wife is a whore. One of the fruits of the Spirit is a love for the brethren, and though the church is far from perfect she is His bride. I can't imagine anyone calling my wife a whore then expect to have any sort of relationship with me. As much as I love my wife I imagine it doesn't surpass the zeal Christ has for His bride.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by Len] [/quote:ea2486be22]

Yes, it does sound like someone who doesn't want fellowship with the church. But I do! I don't go around saying that all the time, instead I talk about her beauty and how God loves her and Jesus Christ saved her. But at the same time I cannot escape the reality that 97.5% of church's in my town are disobedient slobs. I am suprised that God has not struck the majority of the church dead because of her offerings of 'strange fire.' It was said at one of the last Ligonier conferences, that God would do us a great service to administer the punishment given to the two priests in the temple who were treating holy things with contempt.

Rembrandt


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 16, 2004)

Paul (the painter),

Sometimes I feel like that too. When this verbal persecution we see turns into violence, I pray we, as a church, remember what we've turned away from and embrace it again.


----------



## Answerman (May 18, 2004)

I have begun reading &quot;The John Revelation Project&quot; which is an exposition of Revelation based on a parallels from Joshua and the gospel of John by the faculty at Knox Theological Seminary and one of the assertions that is made is just what the title of this thread states, &quot;The Protestant Church is a whore&quot;.

Here is a quote from a footnote in this paper:

There are clues to the identity of the Babylonian whore woven within the Johannine material according to the parallel and chiastic patterning that tie the two books, the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, together. The Great Whore of Revelation, who drinks her cup of loathsomeness and is arrayed in scarlet (Rev 17:4), is a mockery of a queen (Rev 18:7) now that her great hour of judgment and death has come (Rev 18:10). Parallel to the Great Whore of Revelation is the blessed Lord Jesus of John's Gospel, who in His suffering for us drank the loathsome cup (John 18:11), was arrayed in scarlet (John 19:2), had His kingdom mocked (John 19:3), and suffered death when the great hour of judgment hadcome (John 17:1). John justly charges the Great Whore with blasphemy (Rev 17:3) and fornication (Rev 17:4-5). Bearing her reproach, the precious Lord Jesus suffered the calumnious charges of blasphemy (John 10:33) and fornication (John 8:41). Clearly, John is telling us that the Lord Jesus took the reproach of the whore of Revelation upon Himself. For anyone who has a reformed doctrine of particular redemption, the identity of the whore should become immediately apparent.

Since all of this is new to me I am not indorsing this view just posting it. In fact I was getting ready to post a question asking people what they think of this project and get other peoples take on if it could perhaps be a well reasoned reformed exposition of the book of Revelation.

In Christ,
David


----------



## BobVigneault (May 18, 2004)

My wife works in a Christian bookstore, (please don't hold it against her) and one day I told her that I'm writing a book but I think the title might turn people off. She asked me what the title was, I answered, 
&quot;The Church Is A Blind, Naked Whore&quot;
I was serious but I don't think it would fair well in the market against &quot;The Purpose Driven Church&quot; and yet it's really two titles for the same book.

The church right and wrong, good and bad is the vehicle, even the visible body of Christ that He uses to propagate the gospel generation after generation. The church is good because God has consesrated it for a holy pupose BUT... the church has whored after the world from Constantine on. The church is the naked whore on the auction block that Hosea loved and redeemed - a blind naked whore.

I have often wondered if Babylon the Great wasn't the Roman Catholic church, (the colors purple and crimson even match the robes of the cardinals and bishops) the mother of prostitutes, that would be us, the protestants.

And the way I see it, the church is the bride of Christ yes, but the marriage is a future event. The church is in no way yet prepared to be the bride, not when she's wearing rags or naked, she's blind and whoring after the world and it's riches. She must first ungergo a purification and perhaps it has started. Perhaps it began with the pedaphilia scandal in the mother church and will soon move onto her children - the judgment of the church following history.

Anyway, these are idlings and musings and things that make you say, 'hmmmm'. I'm sorry for what touched off this catharsis in rembrandt but he is not wrong in his assessment of the church. She is not ready to be the bride yet, she will be, God continues to call out and save the elect inspite of all of her faults. There is no other means for salvation, but she is not bride-like, she is more like a blind, naked whore.


----------



## andreas (May 22, 2004)

&lt;&lt;&lt;I love the church. I embrace the church. I abide in the church. But the bride of Christ is a whore.&gt;&gt;&gt;

The bride of Christ ,the church,the heavenly Jerusalem is not a whore.It is the apostate church,Babylon, that is a whore,who has commited fornication,&quot;the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth&quot;.Rev.17:5
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:31b7dbebef][i:31b7dbebef]Originally posted by andreas[/i:31b7dbebef]
&lt;&lt;&lt;I love the church. I embrace the church. I abide in the church. But the bride of Christ is a whore.&gt;&gt;&gt;

The bride of Christ ,the church,the heavenly Jerusalem is not a whore.It is the apostate church,Babylon, that is a whore,who has commited fornication,&quot;the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth&quot;.Rev.17:5
andreas. [/quote:31b7dbebef]

What do you think of the prophets calling the OT church a whore?

We are whores being perfected by the blood of the Lamb. God sees us as pure because of his blood. But that doesn't mean that we are not whores.

Are we not sinners because we are jusified/righteous? The church is a whore, yet a perfect bride. Same concept.

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas (May 22, 2004)

&lt;&lt;&lt;Are we not sinners because we are jusified/righteous? The church is a whore, yet a perfect bride. Same concept. &gt;&gt;&gt;


&quot; And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,&quot;
Rev 21:9-10

The new Jerusalem is holy,for it has been consecrated by God as a place without sin.The new Jerusalem is holy and free from sin,unlike the old Jerusalem ravaged by sin.The bride comes down from heaven from God.You can not call her a whore.It is offensive.How can you call something that comes from heaven,from God,a whore?
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:2270e89165]The new Jerusalem is holy,for it has been consecrated by God as a place without sin.The new Jerusalem is holy and free from sin,unlike the old Jerusalem ravaged by sin.The bride comes down from heaven from God.You can not call her a .It is offensive.How can you call something that comes from heaven,from God,a ? 
andreas.[/quote:2270e89165]

That is poor. You didn't even touch my arguement.

The new Jerusalem has not yet arrived. The church is not yet in heaven. The church is not yet glorified. There is still sin in the church therefore there is still filth in the bride.

I will say again:
[quote:2270e89165]What do you think of the prophets calling the OT church a ? 

We are s being perfected by the of the Lamb. God sees us as pure because of his . But that doesn't mean that we are not s. 

[b:2270e89165]Are we not sinners [yet] are jusified/righteous? The church is a , yet a perfect bride. Same concept.[/b:2270e89165][/quote:2270e89165]

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-22-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## mnkid53 (May 22, 2004)

I'm not sure I agree that the Church is a whore. Although I've wondered myself and left many Churches because of their whoring. 
I believe that most of what we see in Evangelical Christianity is not Christian, it is of the flesh, it is wickedness, it is blasphemous, it's all that and more. 
We have to remember the Church is not flesh and blood. It is not carnal. The Church is made up of sinners who forget most of the time that they died in Christ anmd live for the flesh. Christian and non Christians exist in the Chruch side by side. 
We have to remember that it is the Spirit that He causes to work in us that is building His Church and is ultimately what constitutes the Church. Not the flesh.
The Church is not a whore because the Holy spirit is not a whore.


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:d5ebe74a70]The Church is not a whore because the Holy spirit is not a whore.[/quote:d5ebe74a70]

Thats like saying that we (believers) are not sinners because the Holy Spirit indwells us. Just because the Holy Spirit indwells a broken vessel (the church), it does not follow that the Holy Spirit is a whore.

Rembrandt


----------



## mnkid53 (May 22, 2004)

Doesn't Paul teach that the Church is the very body of Christ? Can we identify ourselves apart from Christ and call ourselves whores? 
I'm not sure I can say more on this because I need to preach to myself. I've said such things in the past as well, but when I look back on it, it only hurt the Body because I left them rather than bore their burdens, prayed with them and turned the brothers from their error. I taught my family to be head strong and critical of the Church. Now I'm reaping what I sowed and have a son who will not attend Church and heads off in his own headstrong ways. 
Is the Church the Body of Christ a whore? It would break my heart to think that Christ and God's work in the lives of men leads to whordom.


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:161eef2abe]Doesn't Paul teach that the Church is the very body of Christ? Can we identify ourselves apart from Christ and call ourselves whores?[/quote:161eef2abe]

The OT church was united to Christ.
The OT church was called a whore.
The NT church is united to Christ.
The NT church is called a whore.

What would have changed the titles of the church since the OT age? The OT church was God's wife and was sanctified by Jesus Christ. They are a whore : We are a whore.

[quote:161eef2abe]It would break my heart to think that Christ and God's work in the lives of men leads to whordom.[/quote:161eef2abe]

What? What kind of logic are you using here? God's work is [i:161eef2abe]leading[/i:161eef2abe] to sanctification. We are not yet fully sanctified. We are sinners, yet righteous. One day we will not be sinners. One day the church will be glorified. That has yet to happen. 

[quote:161eef2abe]I've said such things in the past as well, but when I look back on it, it only hurt the Body because I left them rather than bore their burdens, prayed with them and turned the brothers from their error. I taught my family to be head strong and critical of the Church. Now I'm reaping what I sowed and have a son who will not attend Church and heads off in his own headstrong ways.[/quote:161eef2abe]

I am not saying that we should walk around and say that the church is a whore and be church critics. We are to speak well of the church, for it is our salvation. But we cannot omit the obvious. The prophets didn't always speak well of the church because the church wasn't always well.

Also, I am not necessarily talking about individual churches, just the church atlarge.

Rembrandt

P.S. read my other posts that speak very well of the church. Read my opening statement.


----------



## mnkid53 (May 22, 2004)

I understand your other posts, your discouraged. We all get that way.
All I've been trying to say is that looking at the flesh instead of the Spirit is discouraging and the wrong way to view the Church. 
Haven't you read that not all Isreal were Isreal? Isreal in The OT was called a whore but not the remnant that God preserved. The same applies to the NT Church (not all christians are Christians). 
We are told to build one another up and encourage one another. How does calling the Church a whore do that?
Paul in Corinthians had ample opportunity to state that but didn't. 
2:16 - 17 &quot; Don't you know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is Holy, and that is what you are.&quot; 
What you say destroys the faith in your weaker brothers who are equally the temple of God. Why destroy them?

Read 6:12 -20 Paul could have used that kind of language here but didn't. Why? &quot;For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.&quot; Appearances are not everything. This encourages and builds up.

I'm afraid that many in the Church will continue to heed your teaching and live according to the flesh.

This is my last post on the subject. You can be reckless with your words if you like. 
Instead I encourage you to use the fire in your soul to correct the Church in Love, call sin sin, call darkness darkness, please point out wickedness and apsotacy in her midst. We need this kind of love today.

Calling Christ's body a whore doesn't build up or encourage.
I state this as strongly as I do because we reap what we sow. 
I know I have. Just trying to keep you from sorrow also.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2004)

The Bride is not a whore. The Bride is distinguished from a whore. Sinners who have come into the church might have been characterized (literaly or figuratively) as whores, drunkards, murderers, etc. But no longer (1 Cor 6:11). Christ's Bride is a spotless pure thing through sanctification (2 Cor. 11:2). But the Bride is not the same entity as the visible church. 

The visible church isn't always a whore. Where apostasy reigns, where she has &quot;left her first love,&quot; where she has gone after other gods, there she has played the harlot. But the church that loves the gospel of grace, and exercises self discipline is not behaving like a whore.

The church that is proud of its false gospel (Gal. 1:6; 3:1), its toleration (1 Cor. 5:1,2; Rev. 2:20), its self-righteousness (Lk. 18:9-14) is a whore. :wr50:


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:fc3b601654]This is my last post on the subject.[/quote:fc3b601654]

Okay.

[quote:fc3b601654]Haven't you read that not all Isreal were Isreal? Isreal in The OT was called a but not the remnant that God preserved. The same applies to the NT Church (not all christians are Christians).[/quote:fc3b601654]

Do you think that there could have been some of the elect among the church at large who he called a ? He was talking about the visible church. I realize that. But the invisible church comprises of the visible church. Can the remnant fall into grave errors? Yes, but they will finally be rescued. Therefore they would fall under the same category as the church at large. Remember, I was not talking about individuals or individual churches, but the Christian church as a whole. Though some of us might be clean, we still have our identity with the rebellious whole.

[quote:fc3b601654]Calling Christ's body a doesn't build up or encourage.[/quote:fc3b601654]

Under law we are s. Under grace we are not. Under grace one of the functions of the law is to encourage. We must not see this apart from grace.

[quote:fc3b601654]I'm afraid that many in the Church will continue to heed your teaching and live according to the flesh.[/quote:fc3b601654]

My teaching? When the prophets used this term, did it encourage people to live according to the flesh? Or did it encourage the elect to repent? The law is to lead us to grace.

[quote:fc3b601654]All I've been trying to say is that looking at the flesh instead of the Spirit is discouraging and the wrong way to view the Church.[/quote:fc3b601654]

I agree. The Spirit indwells the church. From us is salvation. The grace of Christ is abiding in the church. We are a sactuary of the Spirit. I've already said these things. 

The /sin issue is definitely not the domlnent act of my thinking. If fact, I don't want to think about it again after this thread finally gets over with...

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## pastorway (May 22, 2004)

Where in the Bible is the church ever referred to as a whore?

It never is. Never.

In the OT the term was used for Judah and Israel - two nations of people. But the term has never been used to describe the blood bought bride of Christ. 

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

[quote:4fb8803544]In the OT the term was used for Judah and Israel - two nations of people. But the term has never been used to describe the blood bought bride of Christ.[/quote:4fb8803544]

That sounds like a thoroughly baptistic understanding.


----------



## pastorway (May 22, 2004)

anything wrong with that?

Again, show me one verse in the Bible where the blood bought bride of Christ is referred to as a whore.

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt (May 22, 2004)

Thats going to have to wait until tomorrow because I cannot perform a search on my computer because it is an illegal word.

But in the meantime, how about when the prophet married a whore to demonstrate the relation of Israel to God. Israel was a whore, and yet God still married her because of his longsuffering.

All the verses I can scrounge up right now seem to be when Israel was comitting idolatry and they were being rebuked and called names by the prophets. I mean, I know that 'whore' is not the most accurate title for the church, because it doesn't take into account grace. 

I don't think he was calling only the nation a whore. But the church that is the nation a whore. I don't feel like getting into a discussion of CT though... 

Rembrandt


----------



## pastorway (May 23, 2004)

Let me be clear - I am referring not to any denominatio, group, or local church. I am referring to the bride of Christ, His body. It is never referred to as anything derogatory! It is, by virtue of His sacrifice, holy! 

I am making this point to say that you need to reconsider who you are talking about. Is it really the church if it is acting like a harlot?

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:83009c6fc7]I am making this point to say that you need to reconsider who you are talking about. Is it really the church if it is acting like a harlot?[/quote:83009c6fc7]

The visible church, yes. There are elect in the 'visible church' or 'outward community'. I am talking about the church as a whole. Could there be elect members in the visible church that I am referring to as a whore? Yes. I mean, the elect can be rebellious for a time, right? That doesn't mean [i:83009c6fc7]every single[/i:83009c6fc7] member of the church is rebellious. Just like the prophets lumped together all of the OT church and called them names, but there was a remnant that those names both did and didn't apply to in a sence. The pure and faithful were identified along with the rest, and could have had their blessings cut off because of the rest. But it doens't follow that every single member of the community is living in whoredom.

But this convsation isn't going to work if we can't agree on [i:83009c6fc7]&quot;who&quot;[/i:83009c6fc7] the church is...

Rembrandt


----------



## pastorway (May 23, 2004)

and 

Very well said, Paul!

To impugn the church this way is to falsely accuse the body of Christ - the WHOLE body.

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

I was simply saying that the majority of the church has gone astray. Let me ask this, why did the prophets clump the OT church into one big whole? The church as a whole has gone astray. That doesn't mean that there are some that are faithful. My statement was a generalization. You can call it false reasoning. But if the Bible gives all those who profess, the title of 'church', then the entire mass is to be seen together (in a sence).

When the prophets said &quot;ALL&quot; (or generalized), they knew that it wasn't absolutely every single person they were directly speaking to, but the church atlarge. So, I think the logic behind your statements makes perfect sence, but it is not entirely applicable when we hear the way the prophets spoke. [b:5c03a1097e]And Paul said that ALL of Israel was rejected because of unbelief. But it does not follow that he actually meant ALL. He mentions a remnant who were under the ALL, but yet were faithful.[/b:5c03a1097e]

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

I just want to second this statment:

[quote:6a26c1ea6f][b:6a26c1ea6f]And Paul said that ALL of Israel was rejected because of unbelief. But it does not follow that he actually meant ALL. He mentions a remnant who were under the ALL, but yet were faithful.[/b:6a26c1ea6f][/quote:6a26c1ea6f]

Paul, the writers of the Bible didn't use that particular logic (from your argument) [i:6a26c1ea6f]when speaking, though they understood it[/i:6a26c1ea6f].

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:3cbb07097a]So, if you still want to say, &quot;the majority&quot; then I will expect your empirical studies to be posted[/quote:3cbb07097a]

In statistics we do not need to survery every single person to come up with an idea of what the majority might look like. We can use 'group sampling' and take a survey of one area and then generalize. Or use 'random sampling' and then generalize. Staticians are not out to 'prove' something from a sample analysis. They are trying to come up with an idea of the whole based on given data. 

I cannot prove that X number of churches have gone astray unless I look at them. I have looked at a good number. If I see 100 evangelical churches that worship idols, I can have an idea from that (if it was a random sample), that many more also fall in the same category. I think it is sufficent to reason that if 100 out of 100 churches worship idols, we can predict the probability of the next church, and our prediction would be fairly accurate. 

If I do a 'group sampling' of churches in my my city, I can come up with good predictions of the 'Church of my city' as a whole. Example: I [i:3cbb07097a]know[/i:3cbb07097a] there are only 2 good Presbyterian churches in my city. The rest of the churches (from other denoms) don't adhere to correct theology and are schismatics from the truth that has been established. I can come up with a good idea of the whole church of my city now. I can say (bassed on my prior theological commitments) that the MAJORITY of churches have gone astray. 

[quote:3cbb07097a]So you're a prophet now?[/quote:3cbb07097a]

when I was using examples from the prophets and apostles, I was only trying to show that they said, &quot;ALL of have gone astray&quot;, while being conscience that not really &quot;ALL&quot; actually have. It was a generalization. I understand your logic behind what you said, but it doesn't always have to be used in that way while conversing with figures of speech (i.e. &quot;ALL&quot; does not always denote &quot;ALL&quot. If you used this idea, then Jesus really did die for &quot;ALL &quot; people, like the apostles said.

[quote:3cbb07097a]I will expect your empirical studies to be posted[/quote:3cbb07097a]

Look around! I am not trying to be sloppy with my assertions, but I am not trying to be a statician either. I am using figures of speech from the Bible. 

[quote:3cbb07097a]Also, I was using the definition that the WCF used of the visible church. I thought you held to that.[/quote:3cbb07097a]

Show me where I depart, and I will correct myself. Are you trying to say that I think &quot;everybody&quot; is the visible church? I don't think that. Only that alot of churches that do not hold to the Bible 'exactly' still would be considered visible churches.

[quote:3cbb07097a]Now, we are getting somewhere. SO you don't believe that the visible church is a whore, but rather you believe that *the majority* is a whore.[/quote:3cbb07097a]

When the church of the OT was called names, was it still a visible church? Sometimes, I think, it was. 

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Craig (May 23, 2004)

Paul said:
[quote:116b896114]
First off I doubt you know over 1,000,000 people. The visible church is made up of many more millions than 1 million (billions). Also, there are millions of churches in the world. I bet you don't have a deep familiarity with 1,000 churches. So, just to be generous, let's say that there are 500,000,000 Christians who make up the visible church. To make a judgment that 250,000,001 visible church members have gone astray is going to be interesting. I will await your detailed analysis of the hearts of 250,000,001 people... oh yeah, names included please. 
[/quote:116b896114]


Always a pleasure reading your stuff, Paul (same with you, Rembrant)

Maybe I should direct this question to everyone: If the majority of the visible church is not a whore (something I don't affirm either); how do we describe her when we see the majority of protestant Christians devouring self help, CCM subculture, following self proclaimed prophets, and the whole consumption attitude when it comes to their faith?

Granted, this is predominantly an American anomoly...but you will find it in Europe, Australia, and other places. In fact, some of the most disturbing places may be Haiti and any other culture mixing Christianity with their occultic past...is this being whorish? Do we just say that's not the church visible, that is something outside of the church?

Part of me wants to say, yeah, this is whorish...but again, like in my post, I don't think that is dealing graciously toward true brethren who have been purchased by the same Lord to His glory. uzzled:


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:8f70501a1a]Do we just say that's not the church visible, that is something outside of the church?[/quote:8f70501a1a]

This is the essential question.

I think everyone would say that many things in many churches are whorish. The question is whether or not these churches are deserving of our calling them a 'true church' (visibility of God's true community). I think that a particular church can be worthy of this title if they have some errors. A seeker-sensitive church would still be considered part of the 'visible church'.

If this visible church is in grave error (say, Arminian) they would still be a part of the 'visible community'. But is Arminian theology whorish? Now, where does that leave us?

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:58366cc25c]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In statistics we do not need to survery every single person to come up with an idea of what the majority might look like. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Statistics never lie and liars use statistics?[/quote:58366cc25c]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Some statistics lie, yes. But if you are going to dismiss 'group' and 'random' sampling as offering a good picture of the whole, then we would have no way of even coming to grips with the situations at hand that rely on this type of statistic. Very rarely do statistics not use sampling.

[quote:58366cc25c]Where may I find this published so I may review your work. I am sure you know that there are many factors that can falisfy the work done by the statisician. So, I hope you are not just expecting me to take your say-so? Post your analysis.[/quote:58366cc25c]

View the ratio of PCA, OPC, other [i:58366cc25c]smaller[/i:58366cc25c] Reformed organizations, to other denominations that we would both agree are incorrect in their theology: Arminians, credos, Pentecostals, Catholics, etc. etc....

The stats are coming... next post...

As for the stats you listed, I know that Christianity is growing at a rapid pace. But that is NOT what we are looking at here. We are looking at what [i:58366cc25c]kind[/i:58366cc25c] of Christianity. For example, most of the churches in China that you mentioned are Pentecostal. I will prove this if you want. But that is only an example. Also, alot of the biggest Korean churches (numbering into the 20,000+ range) are run by modern apostles (i.e. lunatics).

[quote:58366cc25c]Worship idol's? How are you defining this?[/quote:58366cc25c]

Only an example. I should have named a specific act. I should have said that if 100 churches do alter calls or speak out against Calvinism.

[quote:58366cc25c]Again, provide the studies. Also what do you mean, &quot;correct theology?&quot; Are you 100% correct on ALL of your doctrine? If not then you don't adhere to &quot;correct&quot; theology. So are you a whore? Am I right on everything I believe? probably not. Am I a whore? [...] Sounds pretty arrogant.[/quote:58366cc25c]

I operate on prior theological commitments. When I debate infant baptism [for instance], I start out with the idea that my thinking is a valid representation of the Bible (or else I couldn't argue). How is that aroggant? You do it all the time. We cannot get around the fact that we believe our foundational beliefs to be correct.

[quote:58366cc25c]So Paul was a statistician? Or did he say this by inspiration of the holy spirit. You are reasoning from something Paul said by inspiration to something you have said by staistics (with no data provided, no analysis for scrutinization, etc). I agree with the &quot;ALL&quot; analysis. In the Bible there are other inspired verses which tell me how to interpret that, though. Your asking me to accept your fallible conclusion based upon no given evidence.[/quote:58366cc25c]

I was showing that it is not invalid to say &quot;ALL&quot; when you don't truly mean &quot;ALL&quot;. That is a common form of speech. We say Christ died for all people, even though he really didn't. The readers of the Bible understood that &quot;ALL the world&quot; was not referring to &quot;ALL the world&quot;.

[quote:58366cc25c]I have! What figures of speech from the Bible that referrs to the NT church are you using??? I have seen none. This seems eisogetical to me.[/quote:58366cc25c]

I don't know of any in the NT. (That is because we are under grace and no longer under law. But law is still valid, so titles that we received under law are still valid, except for the fact that law is no longer our reference point, but grace is. For sure the NT writers were more eager to show the grace that we have received...) 

I can give examples under the OT though.

[quote:58366cc25c]Sorry, your interpretation of 100 churches is not a good sample of millions.[/quote:58366cc25c]

There are not millions of people in my city/town. That was only an sample to give an idea of my city. If there are 200 churches, 100 churches is a pretty good sample according to staticians. 

[quote:58366cc25c]That's the problem, Rembrant, your not a prophet and you don't speak for God. The OT prophets did. How dare you call Christ's body a whore without special revelation?[/quote:58366cc25c]

I am arguing FROM special revelation in the BIBLE. Not my own.

[quote:58366cc25c](Still waiting for your staistical analysis to be published, or at least your exegesis from the Bible.....)[/quote:58366cc25c]

Published? Well, I don't need to publish them. I'll show you some that are published though.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

*the terms*

[quote:ca4b48b1d7]In the OT they were called prostitutes for worshipping other gods. Where is the &quot;majority&quot; of the Christian church worshipping other gods? There may be *some* but the majority??? Now, you can say that the majority hold to &quot;arminianism.&quot; But is this &quot;whorish?&quot; I don't think so.[/quote:ca4b48b1d7] 


Before I show my statistics, we must define the terms.

Let me ask this: Is Ariminian theology idolatry? Is Arminian theology Christian?

Now, we know that it is not Christian, but does that mean that Arminians are not Christians. No, I don't think so. For instance, John Wesley, he wrote great hymns and did great missionary work for the church. If we were to talk to him one on one, we would think he is a great guy. But the longer we talked, he would show forth his misunderstandings. The devil used him to spread Arminianism, he holds to the theology of a [email protected] He worships and glorified himself with his theolgy. However, many of his hymns were very Calvinistic. Most Christians who hold to the heresy of Arminianism are Calvinists in practice, they are just very inconsistent in their renderings of the Bible.

Arminian theology is idolatrous. But not all Arminians are idolaters because they don't actually believe the things they do; if they did, they would say their prayers to God about how great [i:ca4b48b1d7]they[/i:ca4b48b1d7] are. That is idolatry. But not all Arminians are idolatrous, but they very easily could be if they were consistent.

Next question: Is the Arminian god another God? Is it a god other than the God of the Bible? 

Yes. But does that mean that they actually worship another god? They could be misguided. I am very sure that they would have thoughts that are not God-honoring, but it doesn' t mean that they all worship the god of their learned thoughts, but instead they (some of them atleast) worship by their inate thoughts produced in them by the Holy Spirit, that have yet to come to the correct intellectual conclusions.

If Arminianism is idolatrous, and another god, then it is whoreish. But it does not follow that all Arminians are whores, for my reasoning above.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:46c5e2a1ff][i:46c5e2a1ff]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:46c5e2a1ff]
just so we are on the same page, you are saying that holding to wrong doctrine (e.g., arminianism, pentecostalism, credo-baptism etc) makes you a whore?

-Pul [/quote:46c5e2a1ff]

Let me just make something clear in what I said in the post that I responded to your quote. I do not think that John Wesley was a whore. He was a great man with a poor theology. Where does that leave us? Well, he didn't glorify God with some of his understandings, but he worshipped with some of the things he did understand. Someone can be a Christian with some false theolgy. If someone thinks the Roman Church is the true church, they could still be a Christian. Does that make them a whore? Well, the thoughts are whoreish, because of their origin being not in the word of God, but it does not follow that if someone has [i:46c5e2a1ff]some[/i:46c5e2a1ff] woreish thoughts, that the rest of their thoughts are woreish. So, someone can both be and not be woreish. And yes, in a sence we are all woreish in some ways if we are all idolatrous in some ways.

Once you respond to my previous post, I will post my stats.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

The real question is: what is the extent of my use of the word &quot;whore&quot;? 

If I said we are all whore because we all have idols, then everyone would agree that we are whores in that minute sence. 

Whore is also used to describe the apostate. I wouldn't take it that far in my use of it in this thread. When the Bible called people whores, it is evident that at [i:fd43e5467f]some[/i:fd43e5467f] of the times that people were not apostate once and for all. For instance, the prophet married a whore, to symbolize God's relation to the OT church.

I said in my last post that I don't think that John Wesley was a whore. He is not a whore in the sence of being finally apostate. If he is a Christian he is being sanctified, though some of his thoughts are very whoreish. 

This arguement can be summed up in the already-not yet principle. We are sinners, and we are not sinners. We are righteous and yet we are not righteous. We are sinners and yet righteous.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:c31bac993e][i:c31bac993e]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c31bac993e]
can't respond until I get some definitions. Thanks for the above. 

define whore, as the Bible uses it please? [/quote:c31bac993e]

It is a figurative term, first of all. Whores are prostitutes/adulterous/fornicators because they are not being faithful.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 23, 2004)

> [i:79f8d92f61]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:79f8d92f61]
> [quote:79f8d92f61]
> 
> [quote:79f8d92f61]I have! What figures of speech from the Bible that referrs to the NT church are you using??? I have seen none. This seems eisogetical to me.[/quote:79f8d92f61]
> ...


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:3b7c17c796]Haven't all believers always been under grace and not under the law?[/quote:3b7c17c796]

I knew someone was going to say that. Of course believers have always been justified by grace. But Paul does say that &quot;we are no longer under law, but under grace.&quot; There was a great emphasis of law under the mosaic covenant. I think it was a dispensation of the covenant of grace like all the other covenants. But there is an idea in Pauline thought of us being under grace [i:3b7c17c796]now[/i:3b7c17c796] that the gospel of grace is fully revealed in Christ. Law was the/a major theme under the the Mosaic covenant, though there was clearly grace being revealed during that dispensation, but I think that is a fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham. So, my defense was valid about different names that are related to different dispensations, because the mosaic cov. did emphasize law, and new cov. emphasizes grace, though grace was in both.

[quote:3b7c17c796]Secondly, if you consider most believers apostates then and only then will you have room to call Protestant's s. Israel might be described that way because of their overwhelming apostasy from the covenant. But the church? No way jose![/quote:3b7c17c796] 

Israel was not the church?

The bulk of what you said, I answered in the post before you posted yours (5 min. earlier). You probably didn't see it.

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:f9f2e1b89e]define, &quot;not being faithful&quot;[/quote:f9f2e1b89e]


From 'webster':
[quote:f9f2e1b89e]Full of faith, or having faith; disposed to believe, especially in the declarations and promises of God.

Firm in adherence to promises, oaths, contracts, treaties, or other engagements

True and constant in affection or allegiance to a person to whom one is bound by a vow, by ties of love, gratitude, or honor, as to a husband, a prince, a friend; firm in the observance of duty; loyal; of true fidelity; as, a faithful husband or servant.[/quote:f9f2e1b89e]

'not being faithful' is the opposite of the above.

The question is, what is the extent of unfaithfulness that one must demonstrate before they are 'whores'...

Whatever is idolatrous is whoreish.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:cf4e6901a3][i:cf4e6901a3]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:cf4e6901a3]
are all believers perfect or are we still rooting out idols? [/quote:cf4e6901a3]

We are still 'rooting out idols'.

'Whore' has a different force depending on the context in which it was in. It could mean finally apostate, or it could mean the temporally disobedient church who God was marrying to himself because of his love for her based on Jesus Christ (i.e. like the example of the prophet marrying a whore to show the relationship between God and his people).

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

So, are we on the same page yet?... 'whore' doesn't [i:d201804d35]have to[/i:d201804d35] mean 'finally apostate'...?


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:55055df57e]So, you are saying that disobedience and idolatry mean that one is a ...right?[/quote:55055df57e]

Yes. [i:55055df57e]But[/i:55055df57e], again, the extent of the disobedience determines the extent of 'wh0redome'. If a believer sins, does that make him a 'sinner'? Yes, but he is not [necessarily] a 'sinner' in the sence of him living in a debasment of sin. Believers are 'sinners', but they are not 'sinners' [in the sence of the classification of 'sinners, tax-collectors, and pagans'].

Please weigh my thoughts in this post carefully. It could be very easy for one to throw my [i:55055df57e]distictions[/i:55055df57e] in shams. Lets try to hurry this up so we can show stats.

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Ianterrell (May 23, 2004)

[quote:bfb542eee7][i:bfb542eee7]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bfb542eee7]
[quote:bfb542eee7]Haven't all believers always been under grace and not under the law?[/quote:bfb542eee7]

I knew someone was going to say that. Of course believers have always been justified by grace. But Paul does say that &quot;we are no longer under law, but under grace.&quot; There was a great emphasis of law under the mosaic covenant. I think it was a dispensation of the covenant of grace like all the other covenants. But there is an idea in Pauline thought of us being under grace [i:bfb542eee7]now[/i:bfb542eee7] that the gospel of grace is fully revealed in Christ. Law was the/a major theme under the the Mosaic covenant, though there was clearly grace being revealed during that dispensation, but I think that is a fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham. So, my defense was valid about different names that are related to different dispensations, because the mosaic cov. did emphasize law, and new cov. emphasizes grace, though grace was in both.

[quote:bfb542eee7]Secondly, if you consider most believers apostates then and only then will you have room to call Protestant's s. Israel might be described that way because of their overwhelming apostasy from the covenant. But the church? No way jose![/quote:bfb542eee7] 

Israel was not the church?

The bulk of what you said, I answered in the post before you posted yours (5 min. earlier). You probably didn't see it.

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:bfb542eee7]

Rembrandt,


Thanks for clarifying your position on the law and the new cov. And yes, Israel was outwardly the church. But because of their rank inward divergence from the covenant they apostasized; they were excommunicated though there the promise has not become void. There are still remnants and even a resurgence of God-fearers among the Jews particularly through the Messianic, Jews for Jesus, movement.


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:c228e05a16][i:c228e05a16]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c228e05a16]
[quote:c228e05a16]
But, again, the extent of the disobedience determines the extent of 'wh0redome'. If a believer sins, does that make him a 'sinner'? Yes, but he is not [necessarily] a 'sinner' in the sence of him living in a debasment of sin. Believers are 'sinners', but they are not 'sinners' [in the sence of the classification of 'sinners, tax-collectors, and pagans']. 
[/quote:c228e05a16]

Fine... so the more disobedient the more of a whore one is? Since we all are disobedient then we are all whores... right? Some just more whoreish than others... right?

Now, if you are a whore you're a whore. Some women might whore 7 times a week while others whore once a week. But at the end of the day they are both whores....right?

Now, your post says, &quot;The Protestant Church Is A Whore.&quot; Since whore is defined as a disobedient idolator, and since all Christians are disobedient and still are rooting out idols then all Christians are whores...more or less..... right?

Now, God is not pleased with once a week whoring or seven times a week whoring.... right? It's not like God say's, &quot;oh, those whores are better than the other whores.&quot; If you whore around on God..even ONCE(!) then you have cheated on Him and are a wretched sinful creature and are only saved by the life and death of Christ...right? 

So, we can say that ALL Christians are whores. Your post says &quot;The protestant church is a whore.&quot; That means all of us...right? By your own definition we have to all be whores....right?

-Paul [/quote:c228e05a16]

sure.

But to say that one whore cannot be more disgusting in God's sight than another whore is misleading. Can one sin be more of a grave sin than another? Sin is sin. It equally offends God. But will God hold the sin of murder as a greater sin than the sin of overeating or idle talk? I think so. 

Sure we are all whores. But the sin of lusting in the heart and actually comitting the act of idolatry, cleary show a contrast in levels of sin (though he hates all sin and cannot look upon any).

What exactly are you trying to get at in saying 'we are all whores'? Are you going to try to diminish the idea that the Protestant church can be a whore in a [i:c228e05a16]distinct[/i:c228e05a16] way?

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

Paul, I think you wasted your time pointing out my apparent contradictions. I have labored to show that there are two different ways that the term whore can be defined. I suggest you go back and read how I was using the term in different contexts. We, individually, are whores, yes. But that was not the way in which I was using the word. The word *can* be used in the way you are using and the way I was using (but at the same time being careful to differentiate between the two uses) in the previous posts.

In effect, you have proved nothing. I just agreed that the word can be used in that sence as well as mine. I stated this plenty throughout my posts. Forgive me if I was unclear.

Read my statements of distiction. I was always clear to point out that this is NOT the whoredom that I am referring to. This is a type.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

[quote:a54c450ebb]No, the invisible as well. The members of the invisible Church (except those in the Church triumphant) are still sinners and disobedient people who have idols. So, it is not just the visible.[/quote:a54c450ebb]

Read some of my posts on the first page. I never argued that the invisible church was exempt. I only said that when I use the term, I am addressing the church as a whole (i.e. ALL of the visible church).

[quote:a54c450ebb]No, according to what you have defined, and admitted to, it is the WHOLE church, not the majority. When I asked if *every* believer was a whore you said[/quote:a54c450ebb]

Again, you belittle my warning: &quot;Please weigh my thoughts in this post carefully. It could be very easy for one to throw my [i:a54c450ebb]distictions[/i:a54c450ebb] in shams.&quot; You did just what I expected. You have thrown away any reality that I ever even tried to make distiction.

[quote:a54c450ebb]Notice that we are to be built up to doctrinal unity by &quot;speaking the truth in love&quot;; not by calling eachother whores.[/quote:a54c450ebb]

I said TONS of times that we should not go around saying this often because it is law and not grace, and therefore not the full account of what the church really is in relation to the eternal covenants.

[quote:a54c450ebb]You have just called his beautiful Bride that He is making ready for marrige... a whore. Woe to you, Rembrant.[/quote:a54c450ebb]

'Whore' does not even begin to describe the true essence of the church. Just like 'sinner' doesn't begin to describe the true essence of the regenerate. When we take into account God's grace, we are not whores. Instead, yes we are perfect on account of Christ. She is beautiful by Christ's blood. To call her a whore [i:a54c450ebb]despite[/i:a54c450ebb] of the fact of Christ's blood would be wrong. But read my first page. [b:a54c450ebb]I was defining an aspect of our nature, not the totality of what the church is in account of God.[/b:a54c450ebb] That is just like saying that we are filthy sinners. But if we left it at that, we would be wrong. I do not leave it at that. I say that the bride is [b:a54c450ebb]inherently[/b:a54c450ebb] a whore, but is perfect (or being made perfect) on account of the Blood of Christ. Thus, God sees us as perfect. Just like he sees sinners as justified. This, I think is where I have been off base with people responding to this post. I said that repeatedly but no one cares.

By the way, I believe there are Reformed theologians who call the church a whore. 

Rembrandt


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 23, 2004)

Just some thoughts:

1) Let's remember and be thankful that the church in the USofA is not a great picture of the visible church in totality.

2) I'm not sure in what sense you use the word &quot;whore&quot; or &quot;prostitute.&quot; I do not think that a group of people given the Holy Spirit could be considered as such a regular, professional, unremoresful participant in such activities. And when these men and women preach and teach the gospel (not necessarily with words mind you) I can only imagine that God will work.

Meh, just some thoughts.


----------



## rembrandt (May 23, 2004)

The church is a ______. 

The church is unfaithful.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

Every believer is perfectly obedient to the law of God.

To think otherwise is to forget the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness or to forget its importance.

This cannot be minimized.


----------



## rembrandt (May 24, 2004)

[quote:869646de33]So, since you denied my analysis and want to only hold that &quot;the majority&quot; are unfaithful then tell me how does someone fulfill your demands perfectly???[/quote:869646de33]

No, we are all unfaithful in the sence that we are not entirely faithful. No one fulfills them perfectly. But this is not what I am talking about. I am saying that the church atlarge appears unfaithful. Based on my observations, I think I have good warrant to say the church atlarge actually is unfaithful. The only thing we are dealing with here is the 'extent'.

[quote:869646de33]Still waiting for ONE verse which says that NT Church is a whore....[/quote:869646de33]

I already said that there is none.

[quote:869646de33]If they don't then you still have my above post to deal with.[/quote:869646de33]

Your accusations were false. I have already dealt with them. I have nothing else of yet to deal with.

[quote:869646de33]Did Jesus rebuke him and call him a whore?!?![/quote:869646de33]

We don't need to appeal to emotion here.

[quote:869646de33]So, you are saying that only *some*, or the &quot;majority&quot; of the Church are unfaithful... not all of it?[/quote:869646de33]

'All' and 'some (or majority)'. It is dependent upon the extent of usage. I have already dealt with this.


----------



## rembrandt (May 24, 2004)

[quote:b9121f1db9][i:b9121f1db9]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b9121f1db9]
Every believer is perfectly obedient to the law of God.

To think otherwise is to forget the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness or to forget its importance.

This cannot be minimized. [/quote:b9121f1db9]

There is a difference of opinion of 'the new man' in the Reformed camp. [In a sence] We obey God perfectly (only in God's sight though) in the sence that Jesus Christ lived for us perfectly. But it does not follow that we are perfectly obedient to God in our own actions.

Throughout this whole thread I have been stressing the doctrine of imputation. That we are sinners and yet righteous. This is only righteous in God's eyes in light of Christ. In and of ourselves we are not righteous.


----------



## pastorway (May 24, 2004)

While it is true that we must stand against sin and impurity in the visible church, it is likewise true that God Himself refers to the Bride of Christ as holy, chaste, a virgin, righteous, pure, etc, etc.

The Word never once refers to the blood bought people of God as whores. Not once.

To do so is offensive, misguided, slanderous, and arrogant.

The Bride of Christ is no whore, for if she is or ever was, then Christ has failed, His work is not finished, and we have no assurance.

[b:9778b74887]Revelation 21[/b:9778b74887]
9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, &quot;Come, [b:9778b74887]I will show you the bride[/b:9778b74887], the Lamb's wife.&quot; 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 12Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. 14Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. 22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 27[b:9778b74887]But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie[/b:9778b74887], but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

[b:9778b74887]Revelation 22[/b:9778b74887]
15But [b:9778b74887]outside[/b:9778b74887] are dogs and sorcerers and [b:9778b74887]sexually immoral [/b:9778b74887]and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. 



Phillip



[Edited on 5-24-04 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway (May 24, 2004)

Paul, the case you have made is quite overwhelming. Good Job!

Case Closed!

Phillip


----------

