Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
No he didn't...We aren't saved by faith at all...What he said is:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We are saved BY grace, THRU faith, that it is a GIFT, a free gift, WITHOUT a single work on our part...
Now if you can't reconcile that with what James tells us, you don't have a clue what's on God's mind...Or how to get saved in this age...And you are being dishonest in my opinion by disregarding some scripture as though it doesn't exist to apparently sell your position...
Evangelicalism is another religion
So all the controversies and anathemas among Chalcaedonians, Monophysites, and Nestorians is just a lot of wind? I was aware that liberal members of those churches claim this, but the traditionalist members still insist that words mean things.
I actually agree with you about evangelicalism. Though false, it is far superior to the fraud of historical chrstianity. If I had my way all evangelicals would leave chrstianity for Noachism and you people would no longer be embarrassed by their trailer parks, their plastic daisy pinwheels, their pink flamingos, and their Southern accents.
The POPE saves souls?????
Tell me I didn't really just read that.....
Does Catholicism REALLY teach that? Do Catholics REALLY believe that?
Acts 4:8-12 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Did the pope die for us?
I am saying that the Gospel of the Kingdom did NOT include the REVELATION that Christ died FOR OUR SINS, as Acts 1 & 2 point out clearly. That Peter and the 11 were given a different commission (to the circumcision) than Paul was given (to the uncircumcision). That Peter and the 11 were preaching about and to a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS (Israel), and Paul was preaching about and to a BODY OF BELIEVERS (The Church the Body of Christ). That the Kingdom involves Christ's return to this EARTH to reign over His Kingdom that He will establish upon His return. That it was prophesied and will be fulfilled, just as the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant God made with Israel says. That the Body of Christ was NEVER prophesied but kept secret from the foundation of the world by God, and our inheritance and promises are in the heavenlies.
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Matt. 19:28.
Jesus said this to Peter and the 11. Was Christ lying? Did He not promise them they would sit on twelve thrones judging ISRAEL? Do you think He meant to say they would be judging ALL NATIONS? They are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel during the MILLENIAL REIGN OF CHRIST, THE KINGDOM.
So...if Christ was telling them the TRUTH, where does that leave Paul? Are they going to pull up an extra throne for him to sit at during the Kingdom reign of Christ? And who will he be judging? He preached a gospel of the Grace of God, where there is neither Jew nor Greek. So where does that leave HIM during the Millenial Reign of Christ on this Earth?
It leaves him exactly where he said WE, the Church the BOdy of Christ, said we would be. IN THE HEAVENLIES. Our inheritance is heavenly. We will be judging the angels and saints (1 Cor. Chapter 6). Paul is part of the Body of Christ, NOT the Kingdom, promised to Israel, where they will be a Nation of Priests, and a blessing to all the world.
EVERYTHING is based on Christ's shed blood for us, ALL of us who believe. And it is ALL based on the grace of God. Without His reaching down to man, NONE of us would be able to reach Him. But our INHERITANCE and the PROMISES TO US, the Body of Christ, is DIFFERENT that the INHERITANCE and the PROMISES TO THE NATION ISRAEL.
Which is obvious if Scripture were read, and not read INTO.
Wrong again.
Repent and turn to Christ.
Acts 4:8-12 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Trusting their eternal future to mortal men will not end well.
If you do not believe the Bible is to be taken LITERALLY, then all the Scripture in the world is not enough to show you. If you do not believe that Christ is LITERALLY going to return to this Earth to LITERALLY reign for 1000 years in His Kingdom that He is LITERALLY going to set up at His return, that there are going to be REAL people on this EARTH during those 1000 years, and that Israel is LITERALLY going to be a Nation of priests and a blessing to ALL REAL NATIONS, then what good is my giving you Scripture? If you don't believe that Peter and the 11 are going to be sitting on 12 LITERAL THRONES judging the twelve tribes of Israel, then LITERAL SCRIPTURE does NO GOOD.
If you believe all of this is SPIRITUAL and not LITERAL, then the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants God made with the Nation Israel are of no consequence. And He did not SAY WHAT HE MEANT, and MEAN WHAT HE SAID.
So, the question is, do you believe that the Bible is to be taken LITERALLY, or that these things are to be taken in a Spiritual context only?
Amen and Amen!
Have you ever brought anybody to Christ?
Facilitated in their conversion?
Helped to turn them away from a life of sin?
WHOA!!! Wait a minute. But they DO take parts of the Bible literally.
Catholics become the most ardent Bible literalists the planet has ever seen when it come to their favorite verses taken out of context to support their predetermined doctrine.
Like Peter is the rock on which the church is built when all other Scripture says it's Jesus.
Like eating Jesus body and blood when all other Scripture says not to eat blood and Jesus Himself says that the words He spoke were Spirit and the flesh counts for NOTHING.
Like works are needed for salvation (James) when chapters of other passages clearly state that it's only through faith that we can attain the righteousness required by God to see Him.
DOH! {{{slaps head}}}}. Of course they do! The parts they like are LITERALLY literal. Will I ever get this straight...?...?? :)
Sure. But I didn't *save* them. And I would certainly fight ever being credited with *saving* anybody.
Only Jesus saves.
I can introduce people to the claims of Christ. What they do with that is their own decision, but I did not save them.
Saying the pope saves souls says that he saves them. It attributes to him the ability to save someone, which is what Catholic doctrine teaches when it states that Catholic clergy have the power to retain or remit sin. It gives them the power to save or damn other human beings.
Blasphemy... plain and simple...
Only Jesus can save anyone. He's the only one with the authority or the power to do so.
So basically you’re just an anti-Catholic, trolling for opportunities to mischaracterize articles and Biblical text to suit your purpose.
How is it that you mock literal interpretation of Biblical passages with which you disagree.
On what basis do choose to dismiss these as “symbolic”?
I would like to ask on what basis does the RCC choose to dismiss the ACTUAL LITERAL passages as “symbolic”?
Is THIS the “all other Scripture” you’re referring to, regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
1 Cor 5:7, 10:16, 11:24, 27-29
Luke 22:19,20
Mark 14:22-24
Matt 26:26
Acts 2:42
John 6:27-71
Is THIS the “all other Scripture” you’re referring to, regarding Christ’s words in Mt 16:18-19
“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give your the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
You may pretend language gymnastics to insist Christ is talking about himself, but it doesn’t explain the second line “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Lk 22:32
Jn 21:17
Mk 16:7
Lk 24:34
Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19
Gal 2:11-14
The big rock, little rock nonsense doesn’t withstand serious academic scrutiny.
We don’t!
See my post 415.
The “symbolic” reference is to interpretation of the Apocalypse.
Would you like to debate the symbolism there and assert it is literal?
You are a funny guy.
A basin of water to wash his hands would be more fitting than calls for kissing the papal ring in submission.
"Unless Qué será, será is a plan of salvation" was a [poor] joke.
On this part that you question: "they sought what was coherent and consistent of the faith taught by Christ to His Apostles."
You see the clearest examples of this in the early councils, on who Christ is contra the heresies, quite expressly. This is what kept the Christian religion what it is today. It still does: we are not Calvinists or Oneness Pentecostals or Dispensationists; but, one faith, One Lord, one baptism. Note that the heresies also argued from scripture. It was the apostolic Church that had the authority to affirm apostolic teaching for the Church.
Sola scriptura is an example of what happens without it, fragmentation, division, error, individualism.
One of them, by grace alone
The Church affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia at the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy. However to compare this to the Protestant view of the five solas would off. The five solas emmerged to summarize the Reformers theology in contradistinction to the teaching of the Church. If you look at them, you see this distinction.
We obviously have many similarities but in toto the five solas are intended to go against Church teaching.
Thanks for your courteous reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.