Posted on 01/16/2015 8:03:35 AM PST by Salvation
Christians do believe that verse and understand it in the proper context.
For example....We don't know what time Jesus ate lunch...did he brush His teeth? What clothes did he wear on Tuesday?
What kind of late night talks did He and the disciples have? If any.
How far did He walk on a given day?
What all did the disciples say in the upper room? Do we have EVERY recorded word?
The list can go on and on and on. That's why John wrote what he did. Anyone thinking will understand the Bible does not give, nor was intended to give, a 100% complete record of every waking moment in the life of Christ or the disciples.
However, John did tell these things are written so you man know what you believe.
Everything needed for salvation can be found in the Bible. If catholics would stick to the Word, they might understand that.
That would destroy Catholicism.
This was a comment on Monsignor's page. My question is that which we look inside ourselves for, in my understanding is the that which comes directly from the Holy Trinity which is granted and strengthened by the Sacraments that were instituted by Christ to give grace.
The article sure promotes faith in anything so long as it is in addition to Christ, instead of what God provides alone.
It’s been said that anything added to faith alone in Christ alone voids the sufficiency of His Provision and is no longer faith in Christ.
TRUE.
The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith unto good works. (Ephesians 2:8-9) In Romans three and four, Paul must have said salvation is a totally free gift -- not earned by good works -- fifteen times. You must understand that Scripture teaches when we try to add our work to grace, we cancel grace ("grace is no more grace"). He told the Galatians who were trying to be justified by works they had rendered Christ of no effect and fallen from grace. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.(Galatians 5:4)
God simply will not accept human works for salvation. That's the message of Scripture from Genesis forward.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.--Romans 11:6
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. --Ephesians 2:8-10
In the biblical sense of the book of Matthew in the chapter called five by a Catholic and the verse called twenty-two by a Catholic turned Protestant we can read:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There was not a pope in the early church. That is a man-made non-biblical position.
In reality, the modern catholic priesthood is very similar to the priesthood of the jews we encounter in the Bible.
Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then, why does the Holy Spirit tell some people that baptism is necessary for salvation and others that it is not necessary? Why does the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ’s body and blood and others that it is only a symbol?
There is a certain arrogance in this statement. It gives the implication that only certain people are "smart" enough to understand the Scriptures. A review of the Bible shows that is not the case.
For example, Mary and Joseph both understood the Scriptures. The Bereans constantly searched the Scriptures. Paul admonished people to read the Scriptures. So yes, anyone who is willing to sit down and read the Bible can understand it. A working knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew really helps bring the Word into focus, but is not required.
I see why the catholic church for years resisted the common man from reading the Word!
One presumes the Holy Spirit has said these things. In reality the Holy Spirit will not contradict the Word.
The problem we run into is that man thinks he knows how to interpret the Word. The main problem I see is people taking verses out of context or reading something into a verse to prove or substantiate their point that is not supported by the text.
Case in point is catholic teaching on the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. Neither are supported by Scripture. Same could be said of infant baptism.
Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants “Once saved, always saved” and to others, “No”?
See answer above.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim that the Bible contains “everything”, and you either know that, or should know that. It is not in any way hidden or unclear in this respect. Another straw man. That is really poor reasoning on your part.
The word of God clearly states that the act of grace forgives our PAST sins, and writes the law on our hearts, thereby opening us up to our salvation at the last trump. (If we endure to the end)
That is the essence of the NT message; what else can there be?
We do not have the needed capacity to love others as our selves without the writing of Torah on our hearts. It is a gift from God.
Did the disciples love each other?
No, they strived to be the greatest, and constantly had to be admonished that all are equal. They got that needed change when the Holy Spirit was sent to them. That is when what they had studied and tried to live by all their lives suddenly became their nature.
.
That's unlikely. He doesn't believe in faith alone.
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? James 2:20
.
>> “The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim that the Bible contains “everything”, and you either know that” <<
.
What do you think it doesn’t contain?
Why did Yeshua constantly say “It is written” when explaining his Way?
.
“The word of God clearly states that the act of grace forgives our PAST sins”
Where does the Bible “clearly” say such a thing? You provided no Scriptural references.
And are you suggesting Christians have a bifurcated salvation wherein “an act of grace forgives our past sins” ONLY and we must work for the forgiveness we need for future sins, much as the Hebrews had to continually offer sacrifices?
If that is what you believe and are calling the “essence of the NT message” we don’t agree AT ALL.
I corrected his misrepresentation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which doesn’t purport that Scripture contains “everything”. That’s not what it means. For instance, Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim that the Bible tells us what Christ had for breakfast on his 10th birthday. That would fall under the umbrella of “everything”, and the Bible doesn’t tell us that. Using the term “everything” with regard to Sola Scriptura is misleading and/or erroneous.
What do I think Scripture contains? Doctrine, history, Wisdom, poetry, law, prophesy. I would also say that it contains the Word of God, but that isn’t quite right: it IS the Word of God, it doesn’t contain it. Why?
I usually like to read Msgr. Pope’s writings, but the train has derailed here:
1) The Roman church was NOT the final authority on Canon. It was already recognized by the 4th Century. They just agreed with what was already known to believers. Besides, the Roman church of the 4th century is not anything like the Medieval institution you see today; it was still a body with fidelity to the Scriptures.
2) Protestants do not deny that there is God-given authority in the Church. Indeed, He has appointed certain men to lead, and we are to honor their leading. But, Scripture is very clear that we are to never abandon its teachings for the sake of following after any man. Paul declared an anathema on anyone, even angels, who preached a different Gospel than the Gospel of Jesus as given to him and the apostles.
3) Regarding the Roman church’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture—can someone point me to an official Roman Catholic guide to the Scriptures that goes verse-by-verse? No, because there is no such thing. It would easy enough to produce, but the idea that the Magesterium has it all tied together is nonsense. They change their interpretations, too. Reference the abominable, evil Council of Trent and its heretical anathemas against the Protestants and compare it to Vatican II which acknowledges the Christian faith of Protestants. Which one of those is the “REAL” interpretation?
4) Msgr. Pope repeated the old tens of thousands of Protestant denominations lie, and I am ashamed that he would do so. There are actually less than 100 Protestant faith groups in the entire world if you look at their beliefs as a whole.
5) The Roman Catholic Church is hardly the institution of solidarity that it claims to be. There are many sects within that Church, and if you look at the various orders and groupings around the planet, every perspective can be seen. The official statement is that it is one unified body, but reality shows us that underneath that veneer, the Pope sits on top of a huge, boiling tea kettle.
6) Even IF I were to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church was established by Peter, which I don’t believe at all, then the fact that it has changed the Gospel and directly contradicted Scripture demonstrates it has abdicated its position.
7)There are things about the Roman Catholic Church that I admire, believe it or not, such as the emphasis on solemn worship within the Mass. I don’t agree with confession as necessary for forgiveness of sins, but I do think that we should all be much more mindful of confessing sins to each other as the Scriptures command. But, I cannot, in good faith or conscience, submit myself based on a clear understanding of Scripture to many things that are objectionable or even heretical. If I am wrong, I pray for God’s mercy upon me in my ignorance, but I don’t think I am wrong.
You have a very selective reading process!
Our future salvation at the mighty trump of God is not a get out of hell free joy ride.
If it were, Hebrews 6 would not have been written!
Nor would John’s first epistle.
Without Torah written on out heart, there is no salvation possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with temple sacrifices; they were a type of Yeshua’s death, not of believers’ lives. That strawman has been beaten to a pulp.
Selective reading of the epistles is an element of strong delusion.
Why do you suppose Paul praised the Corinthians for their keeping of the ordinances in chapter 11?
Or do your eyes glide over words like that? Are they visible only to a select few? the NT is chock full of such words that churchians somehow fail to see.
.
As a Southern Baptist, I pretty much agree with this.
Faith alone saves, but true faith not mere mental assent will result in changes in a person given enough time and that given time will produce works.
The solo scripture argument was a little weak. Scripture tells us to assemble ourselves together and that no scripture is of private interpretation. Therefore it should be obvious that a right understanding of scripture is aided by fellowship and bible study with other Christians.
And if reliance on scriptural interpretation is the cause of the many protestant splits, then it is also the cause of Catholicism’s splits, for most protestants split from Catholics as did the Orthodox Catholics and the Angligans. But rather, there are usually other factors than simply scriptural interpretations involved in splits.
"The problem of the "solos" emerges (it seems to me)"So the Catholic translation of "it seems to me" is "The Word of God?"The last three words represent the fatal problem with this Romanist.
Like Mormons, who are told to mislead and change the narrative to make Christians seem un-Godly, Catholics also "play dumb" and purposely use "selective reading comprehension" to open a rabbit hole.
*Sigh*
You would think they would stand up to their pope who worships the same "god" as the Islamic muslims (that god does NOT have a son, yet their pope...The Vicar of Christ, Christ's representative on earth, worships the muslim false god and wants his followers to do the same)
In Protestant/generic Christianity any one that said that would be called on the carpet and if no repentance was found, sent away with the Christians knocking the dust off of their feet.
I wonder if I will get an inane tangential "question" for the audacity of my post...
Some times I forget that Catholics are forbidden to debate with non-Catholics...you know, those Christians that are "separated," not quite as good as Catholics.
Everything pertaining to our relationship with Yehova.
If it didn’t, where would we get it?
.
Exactly! which is what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
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.