Posted on 03/15/2014 5:31:38 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
No.
Looks the me like the NIV Bible.
But, there is the problem. There is no clear light. You can stack Scripture atop Scripture for both positions - faith in one and works in another. And, what you then have is two stacks of Scripture. And opinions.
This is not the fault of Scripture. It is the fault of misuse of the Scripture - forcing it to do what it was not intended to do.
In first century Greek, petros and petra did not mean “small stone” and “large rock.” The terms did have those meanings in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century, this distinction was gone and the two were synonyms (EBC 8:368).
Furthermore, “the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means ‘(massive) rock’” (EBC 8:367), not “small stone.”
The usage of the two different terms if fully accounted for by stylistic variation. Too much repetition grates on the ears, which is the whole reason we have pronouns—to avoid excess repetition. In this case, varying the term petros as petra is a normal stylistic variation to avoid repetition in the same sentence.
We would acknowledge even greater examples of stylistic variation in everyday speech in English. If I were a hospital administrator attending a fund-raiser where I planned to announce that one of my chief doctors, a man named Dr. Robert Stone, would be the chief physician of a new wing of the hospital, I might publicly say, “I tell you truly, Bob, that you are a Stone, and on the rock I will build a whole new wing of the hospital.” Nobody at the function would think I was referring to anyone except Dr. Stone as the rock on which the new wing is built. It is perfectly normal stylistic variation, and the etymological difference between the English terms “stone” and “rock” is ever greater than the difference between the Greek terms “petros” and “petra.”
Even supposing, contrary to the linguistic evidence, that the two terms should be read as “small stone” and “large rock,” this does not mean Jesus is diminishing Peter in the statement. The anti-Petrine argument assumes that, if there is a difference in the two terms, there must be antithetic parallelism between the statement about Peter and the statement about the rock. I.e., that Jesus is diminishing Peter by contrasting him with the rock: “I tell you Peter, you are a very small stone, but on the great rock of my identity, I will build my Church.” However, the assumption that the parallelism is antithetic is merely an assumption with no proof. It can just as easily be synthetic, so that the statement about the rock expands on the statement about Peter: “I tell you Peter, you may look like a small stone now, but on the great rock you truly are, I will build my Church.”
NIV = Newly InVented
And you got that from where?
Links to your sources?
>http://jimmyakin.com/why-be-catholic<
Because of course, without a link the argument presented doesn’t stand on its own....
Would you like to focus on the material presented and take issue?
That's exactly it as Paul confirms here...We can always find the truth by comparing scripture with scripture...
2Co 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
2Co 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.
Regardless of what stage the offense gets forgiven, it is already forgiven by Jesus...Paul as an apostle has already forgiven it...The elders of the church have forgiven it...It is bound in heaven...
Catholics can not discuss bound and loosed in heaven other than to 'claim it' since they don't have a clue what it really means...
Don't understand your columns but include me in the one that says 'you don't believe in Jesus unless you do his works'.
While Rome holds that Christ merited the grace of justification, how that is instrumentally appropriated is the issue.
In Scripture faith (the kind of faith that confesses the Lord Jesus as in baptism), purifies the heart, "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) Which is counted for righteousness as the soul is destitute of any merit whereby he may escape his just eternal punishment in Hell fire and gain Heaven.
Likewise Abraham was helpless to produce a vast nation, being as good as dead in that regard, but he trusted God's ability and willingness to effect His promise, and which faith was counted for righteousness.
"And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:21-22)
Thus
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)
And which conversion leaves a soul "washed, justified and sanctified" (1Cor. 6:11) so that he is presently accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) and would go to be with the Lord if he died in faith, just Paul said he and we would, 2Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:21-23; cf. Lk. 16:19-31; 23:43; Acts 7:59; Heb. 13:23; Rv. 6:9.10) though not yet perfect, (Phil. 3:12) and as would all the Thessalonian believers would if the Lord had returned in their lifetime. (1Thes. 4:17)
And which conversion does not leave a soul as merely as legally holy, but as regenerated so that he will live holy as the effect of being washed, justified and sanctified. But which is not as the cause of justification, else actual total moral perfection would be required for all the aforementioned souls in order to be justified and be with the Lord when they died or if He had returned in their lifetime.
Abraham was not imputed, or counted as righteous because he suddenly reached moral perfection, or suddenly was able to produce a vast nation, but because he in his abasement only had faith in God as righteous and able, not himself. Likewise the publican went to his house justified, not after doing penance, but because of faith in God's mercy out of a contrite heart which God effected, for,
"The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18)
Yet Abraham was also justified by works in the sense that works are faith in action (Jesus saw their faith:...." Mark 2:5) and is confirmatory of salvation, versus having an inert faith. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10) Where there is no confession that Christ is Lord, given ability, then there is no faith. (cf. Mt. 10:32)
And as works can require repentance and faith, God can require one to do such works as require this. (Mk. 10:21) And in grace God blesses and rewards obedient faith in recognition of what it effects. (Heb. 10:35)
But if the merit of works themselves earn justification before God then neither Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, before his offered up Issac by faith in Gn. 22, nor the Gentiles in Acts 10, nor can death bed conversions by allowed.
Thus it is seen that faith appropriates justification of the heart while works justify one has saving faith, a complete faith.
As regards Roman soteriology, there is RC doctrine that allows for souls being saved by faith (baptism of desire), yet this itself is counted for a work (baptism), for RC soteriology is based upon the premise that the act of baptism formally justifies a soul by making him good enough inside (infused charity) to be accepted by God and enter Heaven.
the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis). (Catholic Encyclopedia> Sanctifying Grace)
And as the baptism works ex opere operatos (by the act itself) then under Rome it is efficacious even when the subject has no moral cognizance or faith, and even if an unbeliever does the baptizing (which unlike what the word means, is usually sprinkling), providing he "intends to do what the church does" which is very loosely interpreted.
But in contrast to souls being justified by faith - a faith that effects holiness but which is not the case of justification of heart - and thus would immediately go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, under the RC gospel then as souls must actually become morally perfect to enter glory (and may have to atone for sins done after baptism), thus such as fail in this must go through "fire and torments or purifying punishments" (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) commencing at death. For "whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory)
Thus having begun the salvation process by being made good enough inside for Heaven, they typically must end this process by being made good enough inside to enter glory thru the purgatory of Rome (which even the EOs reject as being unhistorical). Therefore early on in the development of this error, some souls would wait to be baptized on their death bed.
In addition, while Roman theology does make a distinction btwn the different types of merit, between “causa meritoria' and “causa formalis,' that of actually earning eternal life versus rewards based upon God being faithful to reward saints according to His promises made under grace, any distinction that is articulated deep in RC theology that would combat the natural tendency to trust in one's own merit to varying degrees for salvation, is effectively lost upon the laity, and apparently most of the clergy.
Not only is Roman soteriology based upon moral worthiness as being what justifies a soul even in conversion, but the normal reading of statements such as by Trent certainly convey that a souls actually earns eternal life by his/her works:
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.
Which is teaching that "one is justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God, and truly merits eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself."
Likewise the CCC: "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)
While God blesses obedience, (Acts 5:32) which is actually His work by grace, (Phil. 2:13) and so that obeying the light one has results in more light, (Jn. 12:36) and communion with God, (Jn. 14:21) and growth in grace solidifies faith and standing against falling away, (2Pt. 1:1-11) eternal life is a gift, not earned, while Hell is what is actually morally earned. (Rm. 6:23) Based on the evidence of works, one can be judged "worthy," (Rv. 3:4) as those of overcoming faith is who are rewarded, (Rv. 21:7) but this is not only a matter of God's grace to souls who actually are worthy of eternal damnation, but there obedience is a result of having been justified freely by grace, on Christ's expense and righteousness, and which saving faith is what produces works that are rewarded.
In contrast, Rome does not emphasize and effectually convey the damned + destitute condition of men and the desperate need for a personal day of salvation by repentant faith out of a broken contrite heart in the Lord Jesus to save on His expense and righteousness.
Instead Rome imagines souls were born again via the act of sprinkling water, typically upon morally in-cognizant souls who cannot fulfill the stated commands for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) or far more rare, by intellectual indoctrination in church-centric teaching, and henceforth they are treated as children of God. And which they are encouraged to imagine they receive spiritual life by physically consuming human flesh, and thru other rituals, which fosters perfunctory professions.
By such Rome promotes faith in herself and her claimed merits and that of one's own merit, and thus one may both have confidence that their life and church will gain them eternal life, somehow under under the rubric of God's mercy, and even if quite liberal, and or it promotes cultic devotion to church.
And thus while faithful evangelicals realize a unity of the Spirit based upon as common personal conversion and Scripture-based relationship with their Lord, and which transcends external divisions, and which is evidenced in both spontaneous meetings and the many evangelical ministries, they seldom find a Catholic with whom this fellowship is realized.
Instead, they typically encounter either ambivalence toward Biblical things, or the church of Rome is promoted and defended as to a god. And which is why they are challenged, both to counter a false gospel and to reach the resultant souls who are in need of salvation.
Has the Holy Spirit also guided dozens of Protestant religions in different directions, having given them each a different understanding?
Hardly...Those who are in contact with the Holy Spirit know the answer to that ridiculous question...The fault lies with the people who will not wait on the Spirit and those such as in the Catholic denomination who have no contact with the Holy Spirit at all...
The Holy Spirit leads in one direction so it is our fault that we disagree on some matters...
The question is, do our disagreements keep us from the Body of Christ...And that answer is NO...
And that's what Protestants believe...But just as we know the Assemblies of God is not the One Church, we know, as the bible teaches, the Catholic denomination is not the One Church...
I disagree with that...
You can stack Scripture atop Scripture for both positions - faith in one and works in another. And, what you then have is two stacks of Scripture. And opinions.
Exactly...So why do you chose the stack that you do???
The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
These two links address the “One” aspect of those four marks of the Church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3133474/posts?page=26#26
notg really interested in Swedenborg quotes.....don’t include me the next time you decide to over dump
don’t tell me.... tell those trying to build works as their foundation
I just courtesy pinged you because it was you he sent the post to.
Of course it was. Jesus was referring back to Peter’s confession.
No; He's not.
You seem unable to clearly understand Scripture when years of teaching have CONVINCED you it says something else.
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.