Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When the Word just isn’t enough
Out of His Mouth ^ | February 11, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

Posted on 06/04/2015 6:28:34 AM PDT by RnMomof7

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The Christian who must wrestle with Roman Catholic apologists (trained and untrained) will often hear them appeal to the ancient, non-scriptural, sources as proof of what the Apostles taught. We dealt with a part of that issue in a prior post about going all the way back to the written Word, instead of just going back to the first few post-apostolic generations. We acknowledge that some foundational Roman Catholic errors emerged early in the post-apostolic era, as Paul predicted they would (Acts 20:30-32), but we deny that those errors must be canonized along with God’s revelation to us in the Holy Bible. Ancient unbiblical teachings do not become more biblical with the passage of time.

What will be interesting to the Christian reader, however, is just how often “Tradition” is created through fabricated conversations and statements. Lacking any evidence for a certain teaching from the Bible, some of the sources (ancient and otherwise) simply create the teaching by placing words “on the lips” of Jesus, Mary and John.

This post draws from two sources—Fr. Eymard’s Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament (1903), and Thomas Livius’ The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries (1893)both of which attempt to show support for Roman Catholic doctrines of Mary. Read their words below, and see if you can detect a pattern in Eymard’s and Livius’ thinking:

On Mary’s mediation:

“Contenson places on the dying lips of Jesus these merciful words: ‘0 men, be hold your Mother! My Wounds are the sources of grace, but their streams, their currents, are spread abroad only by the channel of Mary.'” (Eymard, 204)

“This law is invariable, so much so that Richard of St. Laurence felt authorized to place on the lips of Our Lord the following words, ‘No one can come to Me unless My Mother draws him to Me.'” (Eymard, 207)

“The Scripture account of the conversion of the penitent thief requires some tradition to clear it up. …Now it is an ancient tradition that the penitent thief  was on the right hand of the Cross; and it seems likely that Mary, if she moved about, would yet stand most upon that side, as S. John would feel it the place of honour, and yield it to her. S. Ephrem attributes the conversion of the thief to her intercession.” (Livius, 299)

On transubstantiation:

“Long ago, M. Olier, in order to offer us the most perfect model for Communion, had an exquisite picture drawn, representing St. John [administering communion to] Mary, laying upon the trembling lips of the Mother the Adorable Body of the Son: ‘Ecce Filius tuus! [Behold, your Son!]'” (Eymard, 172)

“St. Ambrose, even in his day, laid the first foundations of our devotion when he placed on the lips of the Saviour, instituting the Holy Eucharist, these memorable words: ‘This is truly My Flesh for the life of the world. Believe it firmly. This is absolutely the same Flesh, which suffered on the Cross, and which issued glorious from the tomb. It is the same, I repeat to you: ‘Haec, inquam, ipsa est.’ ‘[This, I say, it is]'” (Eymard, 193)

On Jesus’ mother being first to witness to the empty tomb and the Resurrection (Scripture records that she was not):

“S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory of Nyssa and Deulius speak of the Blessed Virgin as having gone with the other women to the sepulchre on the morning of the Resurrection. Sedulius writes thus:

The Virgin Mother at first break of day,
And other matrons in her company,
Their harvest of sweet spices carrying,
Come mourning to the well-known sepulchre;
And see it of the Body now bereft.” (Livius, 190)

“The words of St. Ambrose are: ‘Mary saw the Lord’s resurrection, and was the first to see, and believed. Mary Magdalene saw, too, though still wavered.'” (Livius,191)

“S. Peter Chrysologus … speaking of Christ’s resurrection … says: ‘Mary [Magdalene] came. This is the name of Christ’s Mother. Thus, in the name, there came a Mother … that it might be fulfilled what is written, This is the Mother of the living.'” (Livius, 191)

On whether Jesus gave Mary a view of His Transfiguration at His Birth:

“There is room here for reflecting whether the body of the Incarnate Word, thus the subject of such great miracle in His Conception and Birth, might not have exhibited itself in a  glorified state upon His birthday to His Mother. …[T]he following words of S. Ephrem are intelligible: ‘How shall I bring to swaddling clothes, One wrapped round with glory-rays?’ These words he puts in our Lady’s mouth at the Nativity, and they seem scarcely capable of bearing any other plain meaning.” (LIvius, 192-3)

Did you notice a pattern? It is quite simple: lacking Biblical evidence for their traditions, the ancient sources simply place the teachings on the lips of Jesus, Mary and John, or invent the facts necessary to support a belief or practice in which they are already engaging. Richard of St. Laurence already believed that Mary is the mediator of all graces, and therefore “felt authorized” to put the doctrine on Jesus’ lips. Ambrose already believed that Mary, was worthy of being first to witness the resurrection, and therefore simply invented the “fact” that she was. S. Ephrem already believed that Mary was worthy of seeing Jesus transfigured, and therefore simply invented Mary’s eye-witness to it. Peter Chrysologus already believed Mary was present at the Resurrection, and therefore simply assumed that she must have been present in the person of Mary Magdalene. In every case, the belief came first, and the evidence followed. The pattern for Rome is this: “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.” This is why I call “Tradition” the historical revisionism that it clearly is.

The Roman Catholic reader may well object that I have merely defined what tradition is—an extra-biblical source of revelation that complements the Scripture—without actually refuting it. But that is the point. Tradition is nothing more than this: historical revisionism in order to make the data consistent with an already determined belief or practice. It simply doesn’t matter what Scripture reveals—e.g., that Mary Magdalene was first to witness the Resurrection—what matters is what Roman Catholics believe to be true. The data can always be fabricated later to support it. This what Jesus meant when he said, “ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6) The Christian must have a very different approach: What is taught in the Scripture must be the source of what we believe.

We will remind the reader in closing that gross errors originated with men—Philetus, Alexander and Hymenaeus—who were directly exposed to the Apostles’ teachings (1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17); and the rumor that the beloved disciple would not die came from men who “felt authorized” to place on Jesus’ lips the words: “He shall not die.” (John 21:20-23).



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: epistemology; eucharistic; mariolatry; mary; moacb; presbyhate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last
To: terycarl

Nope. We have the old manuscripts to refer back to.

My questions remain and remain unanswered.


121 posted on 06/08/2015 5:38:02 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
You guys constantly change the words of scripture to fit your theology...

Why would we do that??....we wrote the words in the first place.

That was my question...Why would you bow down to people who appear to be religious when your religion wrote that Peter rebuked people for doing that...

122 posted on 06/08/2015 6:41:41 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

They hear, but they do not see...or want to see.


123 posted on 06/08/2015 8:22:56 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Reagan conservative: All 3 Pillars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
and NOTHING about the chirch of Rome's fairy tale about Mary's 'assumption'.

It just ASSUMED it happened...



124 posted on 06/08/2015 9:40:29 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
They hear, but they do not see...or want to see.

Plenty of us 'see' what Rome teaches.

Like the following...


 
The Roman Catholic Church has turned the beautiful, blessed lady of Scripture into an asexual, frigid Jewish wife; who withheld her favors from Joseph for no rational reason.

125 posted on 06/08/2015 9:43:26 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Nope. We have the old manuscripts to refer back to. My questions remain and remain unanswered.

Old manuscripts covering the Nativity???

Were they written by Mary???.....perhaps Joseph jotted down a few notes concerning the lack of rooms available at the inn.

The shepherds are another problem....they were tending their sheep while the angels were singing their songs.......who recorded all of this and how do we know all these details?????????

126 posted on 06/08/2015 7:18:35 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Which nowhere near addresses my questions.

You’ll need more straw.


127 posted on 06/08/2015 10:10:03 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer; metmom
Sorry for the long delay... work-related training (ugh), minimal FR access...

Please - tell me where the phrase "mortal sin" is.

It's easiest to find if you use the RSV... though any translation will do, so long as you keep hold of the context:
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17)
If you'll please do me a favor? Please, for the love of common decency: don't go off on some jag about how I'm "obviously misinterpreting the text", "taking it out of context", "being ignorant of the Greek", or any other nonsense of the "let's throw something against the wall and see if something sticks" variety. The context is "sin which leads to death" (if one feels absolutely compelled to use the error-ridden KJV, for whatever reason)--and no one with a functional cerebrum could possibly read 1 John and conclude that these sins were those which "led to PHYSICAL death"--so it's obviously referring to SPIRITUAL death. That's the very definition of "mortal sin", as per Catholic teaching. But it should be more than enough for 1 John 5 to refer to "sin which leads to death", since that's precisely what "mortal sin" means by ANY sane definition.

Re: other "items to note"... no. So now, you can proceed to the SECOND and THIRD sentence of my comment in #72 (and rbmillerjr’s point in #48, if you feel moved to address this topic at all). :)

My whole point, in fact, was that metmom's "list" was both silly and confused, since it would only make sense if Catholics were "sola Scriptura" people... which they most plainly are not. What's the point in listing loads of Catholic terms which aren't explicitly in the Bible, anyway? Is that supposed to be some sort of indictment, or something?
128 posted on 06/12/2015 4:39:19 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
I admire your steadfastness on this. I honestly do. This query was so long ago, I assumed it was ancient history. Work gets in the way and I am sympathetic to your plight. I played golf today :^)

Thank you for your response!

Regarding my question about "mortal sin" (and none of the rest of your response) Since you said "Please" I will honor your request not to use context, original language, and word meanings to respond to you:

< NULL>

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, but you've made the rules of engagement and I am following them because you said "please."

Here (because it's important) are the definitions of:
biblical hermeneutics and
exegesis

Again, Thank you for answering my question.

129 posted on 06/12/2015 5:04:15 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: paladinan; kinsman redeemer
1 John 5:16-17He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

So, where in Scripture is the list of *mortal* sins, and where is the term *venial* sin mentioned and where is the list for that?

There's NOTHING in the Greek that says *mortal* sin. That is a bad translation by the RSV people, used only to justify their doctrine. That's a bad way to translate Scripture.

My whole point, in fact, was that metmom's "list" was both silly and confused, since it would only make sense if Catholics were "sola Scriptura" people... which they most plainly are not. What's the point in listing loads of Catholic terms which aren't explicitly in the Bible, anyway? Is that supposed to be some sort of indictment, or something?

Since that is the argument Catholics use against sola Scriptura, it ought to go both ways.

Is sS is disqualified because it's not explicitly stated as such in the Bible, anything else that is not explicitly stated in the Bible can also be disqualified and those terms the Catholic religion teaches as truth are included.

We know that Catholics clearly are not following God's word alone. And that is to their detriment. It leaves them open to all kinds of deception.

SCRIPTURE, God's word, is Truth and the standard by which all truth claims can legitimately be measured.

130 posted on 06/12/2015 5:15:01 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Here's what I would have used as a basis for my response to the question of properly interpreting I Jn 5:16 (along with the words, their definitions, and the context of the verse):

1 John 5:16–17 John illustrates praying according to God's will with the specific example of the "sin that leads to death." Such a sin could be any premeditated and unconfessed sin that causes the Lord to determine to end a believer's life. It is not one particular sin like homosexuality or lying, but whatever sin is the final one in the tolerance of God. Failure to repent of and forsake sin may eventually lead to physical death as a judgment of God (Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 5:5 11:30). No intercessory prayer will be effective for those who have committed such deliberate high- handed sin, i. e., God's discipline with physical death is inevitable in such cases as he seeks to preserve the purity of his church (see notes on 1 Cor. 5:5–7). The contrast to the phrase "sin that leads to death" with "sin not leading to death" signifies that the writer distinguishes between sins that may lead to physical death and those that do not. That is not to identify a certain kind of mortal or non- mortal sin, but to say not all sins are so judged by God. [copied from MacSB}

And this:

Verses 16–17 illustrate the kind of petition we can be sure God will answer (see vv. 14–15). sin that leads to death. In the context of this letter directed against Gnostic teaching, which denied the incarnation and threw off all moral restraints, it is probable that the "sin that leads to death" refers to the Gnostics' adamant and persistent denial of the truth and to their shameless immorality. This kind of unrepentant sin leads to spiritual death. Another view is that this is sin that results in physical death. It is held that because a believer continues to sin, God in judgment takes his or her life (cf. 1Co 11:30). In either case, "sin that does not lead to death" is of a less serious nature.[copied from NIVSBN]

131 posted on 06/12/2015 5:30:51 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer

Kind of like Ananias and Sapphira.

Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death. It doesn’t specify.

After all, all Adam and Eve had to do was eat the wrong piece of fruit.

Disobedience is disobedience and that is sin, enough to separate us from God. IOW, we die.


132 posted on 06/12/2015 6:45:14 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer
(*rolling eyes*) No, no one would ever confuse that comment of yours with sarcasm... never fear! [/sarc]

:) But seriously...

My list of requests was more of a rhetorically-rich list of the typical responses that I've gotten from anti-Catholics, re: 1 John 5:16-17; the very same people who want everyone to rely on "the plain sense of Scripture" turn right around and give me a list of excuses, as long as your arm, as to why the text doesn't say what it says. A bit like James 2:24, in that regard.

If it makes you feel better, you've piqued my curiosity: *did* you intend (until coming to an untimely halt, in deference to my request) to say that I was "obviously misinterpreting the text", "taking it out of context", "being ignorant of the Greek", or any other nonsense of the "let's throw something against the wall and see if something sticks" variety? Because, with all due respect: I did not "request not to use context, the original language, and word meanings"; I simply asked you to avoid the tired, old, unsupported canards which were attempts at "proof by vehement assertion".

So... do you think you can prove any counter-assertions, even if they do dip into these "forbidden" realms?
133 posted on 06/13/2015 12:15:31 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: metmom
1 John 5:16-17He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

So, where in Scripture is the list of *mortal* sins,


(*sigh*) Oh, for the love of all that's holy...

Were you missing the whole point of the ideas that "sola Scriptura is a false idea", and "the practice of using 'hey, it's not in the Bible' as an excuse to dismiss anything is sheer insanity"?

Are you also unfamiliar with the definition of "mortal", in this context? If someone were to make a reference to a "mortal wound", would you insist on a complete and comprehensive list of all possible mortal wounds, before you'd accept the existence of "mortal wounds", in general? That's... loco, with all due respect. and where is the term *venial* sin mentioned

To ask such a question is to be infected with the unbiblical insanity known as "sola Scriptura". No one who takes the Bible seriously could possibly subscribe to "sola Scriptura".

and where is the list for that?

See above. That question is just bizarre, frankly.

There's NOTHING in the Greek that says *mortal* sin. That is a bad translation by the RSV people, used only to justify their doctrine. That's a bad way to translate Scripture.

As opposed to anti-Catholics, who do nothing of the sort. Gotcha. :) You do realize that this is pure, raw, unadulterated opinion, right?

"Sin which leads to death" = "mortal sin". If any given anti-Catholic doesn't like the latter term, well... I don't know what to tell them, aside from the fact that reality doesn't change, simply because someone doesn't like it.

[paladinan]
My whole point, in fact, was that metmom's "list" was both silly and confused, since it would only make sense if Catholics were "sola Scriptura" people... which they most plainly are not. What's the point in listing loads of Catholic terms which aren't explicitly in the Bible, anyway? Is that supposed to be some sort of indictment, or something?

[metmom]
Since that is the argument Catholics use against sola Scriptura, it ought to go both ways.

No one who even UNDERSTOOD the Catholic argument against sola Scriptura would ever say that. "sS" requires that something be in the Bible in order for it to be binding on the conscience of a Christian (I believe that's the variant of "sS" which you use... correct? There are many definitions of it, even on this forum, even among anti-Catholics, so it's a bit difficult to tell.); and those who reject the nonsense of "sS" need not worry about satisfying that illogical, self-contradictory, insane standard.

For example: suppose I prove that [x = spiritual truth] is NOT explicitly in Scripture. Here are the typical reactions of faithful followers of the two camps:

sS anti-Catholic: "Well... that's it, then: [x] can't possibly be true Christian docrtine!"

Catholic: "Okay. But let's look at Sacred Tradition, and/or at the teaching of the Magisterium; is [x] THERE? If not, then it can't possibly be true Christian doctrine!"

I'm not sure why you keep saying that Catholics should somehow be negatively affected by a list of things which aren't explicitly in Scripture. It's a bit like a PETA member trying to yell at a non-PETA member for eating meat!

Is sS is disqualified because it's not explicitly stated as such in the Bible,

sS, by DEFINITION, is SELF-CONTRADICTORY (which logic says is "not true"). sS says to relegate the non-Scriptural to the level of "optional and dispensible" (when speaking of Christian salvific matters); and since sS is not in Scripture, it invalidates itself. How could anything ELSE do that? Don't you understand the basic logic necessary to put together the statement?

anything else that is not explicitly stated in the Bible can also be disqualified and those terms the Catholic religion teaches as truth are included.

Forgive me, but... this makes no sense at all. See the PETA example, above.

We know that Catholics clearly are not following God's word alone.

You do not, and you cannot, know that... since it is not true. Jesus is God's Word (Gk: "logos"), and we follow that Word Alone. Anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalists, on the other hand, go much further... and use only a 66-book fragment of the WRITTEN Word of God, alone... which is a vastly different (and rather sad and wretched) thing.

And that is to their detriment. It leaves them open to all kinds of deception.

Oy. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Compare colors, at leisure.

SCRIPTURE, God's word, is Truth and the standard by which all truth claims can legitimately be measured.

Now, settle this for me, once and for all. You've just made a claim, and I want to try (at least for the sake of testing your "sola Scriptura" hypothesis) to follow your advice, here: I want to use the 66-book Protestant Bible ALONE as the standard by which your claim is to be measured. Okay?

Now. Please show me where, in Scripture, it says that your claim is true.
134 posted on 06/13/2015 12:49:44 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: metmom; rbmillerjr; kinsman redeemer
And we should care about the opinions of man over the word of God for what reason?

Er... did you miss the fact that the opinions of men were cited authoritatively in this comment of kinsman redeemer's, to which you concurred? Is your memory that short? Or are you hand-picking which opinions of men you regard as "authoritative" (above and beyond Scripture)?
135 posted on 06/13/2015 12:58:44 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Kind of like Ananias and Sapphira. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death. It doesn’t specify.

It doesn't NEED to specify. Don't you remember the original question? It was asked and answered... and the fact that some on this board didn't LIKE that answer is quite beside the point.

Disobedience is disobedience and that is sin, enough to separate us from God. IOW, we die.

I see. So St. James, when he says that we are justified by works, actually meant that we are NOT justified by works (but by "faith alone", of which good works is a mere by-product); and when St. John said that "there is sin which is not mortal", he really meant that ALL sin is mortal. I see.

Do you realize what calisthenic efforts it takes, to be an anti-Catholic, fundamentalist, sS Protestant?
136 posted on 06/13/2015 1:05:14 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

ALL SIN LEADS TO DEATH.

Adam and Eve simply took a bite from a piece of fruit.

God doesn’t offer graduations of sin. Man does that, thinking that some sin is easier to be absolved of.

All sin took the death of Christ to deal with it.

Catholics do follow more than God’s word alone. They follow *tradition* and apparitions of Mary. They follow their priests and other human leaders.

They add plenty of stuff to Scripture.


137 posted on 06/13/2015 1:59:29 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The soul that sins, dies.

Catholics claim venial and mortal sin. Show s the terminology in Scripture. Show us where the list of non-mortal sins is.

138 posted on 06/13/2015 2:02:39 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
Salvation by grace by believing

John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Acts 16:27-31 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

2 Corinthians 6:2 For he says, “In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Romans 3:20-30 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Romans 4:1-25 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

And Paul says this: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

That it's NOT of works. Ball is in your court. Explain the contradiction.

139 posted on 06/13/2015 2:06:03 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: metmom
ALL SIN LEADS TO DEATH.

Whom am I supposed to believe: the Holy Spirit, Who inspired 1 John 5:16-17, or you? If you'll forgive me, I'll go with the Holy Spirit, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived... unlike some humans.
140 posted on 06/13/2015 5:20:39 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson