[annalex]

If you simply form your soteriology out the the gospels, then you will have to reconcile having to require one soul to sell all he has, while another gives only half to the poor, while another shows compassion to the afflicted, while another just humbly cries for mercy, and another just believes and tells others about Jesus, and another is told the word of Gos is to believe. All these are reconciled (primarily) in Paul’s specific teaching, which Peter called scripture, and which reveals that it is faith out of a humble and contrite heart that appropriates justification, and thus is manifested by works of faith, done is response to salvation, not in order to acquire it.

Yes, I do form my soteriology from the words of Christ. It is true that depending on one's economic circumstance one hase to give all he has, or all that he has in excess, and yet another has to simply cry out for mercy. Millions of Catholics live that gospel out every day.

St. Paul never taught anything different.

I dealt with baptism and the Eucharist already, the latter in post 66

Your #66 makes no sense,-- would you rephrase it to specifically deal with the quotes I cites as to the sacrament of Baptism and the Eucharist? Note that the doubts that Peter might have at one point have no bearing on the issue.

[daniel1212]

The revelation of Scripture is manifestly progressive, and synoptic gospels in particular do not supply systematic soteriology, as does Rm. 1-11. I have explained at length the correlation btwn faith and works, that both are necessary, but that faith appropriates forgiveness, imputed righteousness, and positional sanctification, out of which which works flow, but it is not the merit of them that justifies.

>Millions of Catholics live that gospel out every day.<

What millions of Catholics evidentially live out is their believe that they became Christians as infants, and that their good works and Rome’s power will gain them eternal life, and never having abased themselves as lost hell-bound sinners, destitute of any merit to save them, and thus cast all their faith and confidence in the Lord Jesus and His finished work.

>Your #66 makes no sense<

Did you look above your last reply? How often must loyalty to Rome compel its apologists to deny the obvious. And if you do not think my comments on 6:53 make any sense, and that the evidence that Peter did not see Jesus words as literally meaning he was consuming Jesus actually flesh and blood, have no bearing on the issue, then you should not be engaging in private interpretation, and i should not wast much time further refuting you.