The Protestant Church is a whore.

[rembrandt]

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]

[quote:3cbb07097a]So, if you still want to say, "the majority" 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, "ALL of have gone astray", while being conscience that not really "ALL" 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. "ALL" does not always denote "ALL&quot. If you used this idea, then Jesus really did die for "ALL " 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 "everybody" 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]

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]

[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]

[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, "correct theology?" Are you 100% correct on ALL of your doctrine? If not then you don't adhere to "correct" 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 "ALL" 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 "ALL" when you don't truly mean "ALL". 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 "ALL the world" was not referring to "ALL the world".

[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]

the terms

[quote:ca4b48b1d7]In the OT they were called prostitutes for worshipping other gods. Where is the "majority" of the Christian church worshipping other gods? There may be *some* but the majority??? Now, you can say that the majority hold to "arminianism." But is this "whorish?" 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 b@stard. 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]

[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]

The real question is: what is the extent of my use of the word "whore"?

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]

[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]

[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]

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:79f8d92f61]

Rembrandt,

Haven't all believers always been under grace and not under the law?

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

 

[rembrandt]

[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 "we are no longer under law, but under grace." 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]

[quote:f9f2e1b89e]define, "not being faithful"[/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]

[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]

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

 

[rembrandt]

[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]

[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 "we are no longer under law, but under grace." 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]

[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, "The Protestant Church Is A Whore." 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, "oh, those whores are better than the other whores." 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 "The protestant church is a whore." 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]

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]

[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: "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." 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 "speaking the truth in love"; 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]

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 "whore" or "prostitute." 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]

The church is a ______.

The church is unfaithful.

 

[fredtgreco]

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]

[quote:869646de33]So, since you denied my analysis and want to only hold that "the majority" 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 "majority" 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]

[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]

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, "Come, [b:9778b74887]I will show you the bride[/b:9778b74887], the Lamb's wife." 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]

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

Case Closed!

Phillip