Posted on 01/11/2018 6:54:52 PM PST by Salvation
Confusion? the only thing that confuses me is why people who
does not believe any thing Jesus said even bothers to claim
him as lord,
But wait. Maybe I don’t know that you do.
Are you serious? That is simply not going to do it, since this is actually begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that "you" here refers to Rome and uniquely so.
Meanwhile even being a man who can preach the word of God does not mean he always will be speaking it based upon a criteria/ formula that he comes up with to assert that he is.
Which is what Rome did. For she has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
YOPIOS?
YOPIOS = Your Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture.
It’s what they accuse us of when we don’t swallow hook, line, and sinker the Catholic church party line, no matter how much it contradicts God’s word.
You probably know much more about them than I do but you are
right, it looks bad, real bad, and it does no good to put out
the facts when no one can read them.
I will try to do better the next time.
I gave you the keys to it
...........................
When you use those keys use caution as
it is liable to be one hell of a drop.
I disagree with your interpretation bro. Flesh is unregenerate, weak human nature. I thought you needed a priest to interpret for you? Did you do that? I don’t need a priest to help me interpret scripture.
It seems like it all comes down to interpretation, yours or mine. It amazes me, how you and I can read a ton of New Testament verses, and come away with views 180 degrees opposite each other. Utterly amazing. Either you are right, or I am right, but certainly not both of us.
You should read those verses you posted from Galatians, without the Catholic blinders on, and take it to heart.
I think works based religionists are the foolish ones, and are fallen from grace. My interpretation is, they are fallen from grace, simply because they NEVER had it in the first place.
I am not confident you will take this to heart. That’s on you bro. I guess it all comes down to who goes to Heaven, and who doesn’t. I have no intention of being in the “who doesn’t” category. I don’t have any idea which category you are in. Have a nice eternity bro. I plan to. 😇
AF_ Vet_ 1967-1987
Doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing.
You are correct MM. God could care less what church you do or do not go too. Now, I am sure He doesn’t want us in Mormonism, JWs, Torah law, INC, and other cults, but He is not going to ask us which church we attended. He will only ask what did we do with Christ. In fact, I don’t believe He will even ask that. He already knows what we did with Christ. 👍😄😇
The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification. Protestantism, on the other hand, makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak; and of the sanctification a forensic declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ.
Your personal opinion. Not theologically correct. Classic Protestantism teaches that justification does not happen until there is regeneration (I believe faith comes first, by grace) which leads to purification by faith - the very change Catholicism holds makes the baptized "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness.” ( Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace)
But since - despite the claim of actual obliteration of sin by the very act of baptism - the sin nature is alive and well, and has its outworking, then unless before he dies the soul attains to the rare state of being good enough in character to enter Heaven, including free from any attachment to sin, then the Catholic must endure purifying torments commencing at death, which Scripture nowhere teaches for the believer (want evidence to the contrary?).
Going back to the Catholic description Protestant justification merely making "the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak, Calvin states,
To prove the first point—that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating—he (Osiander) asks whether God leaves as they were by nature those whom he justifies, changing none of their vices. This is exceedingly easy to answer; as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely, righteousness and sanctification.
Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption [Rom. 8:15], by whose power he remakes them to his own image...The grace of justification is not separated from regeneration, although they are things distinct - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Found in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Volume XIX, Book III, Chp. XI.6,11; pp. 732, 739; https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/gospelregeneration.html
R.C. Sproul observes: Technically the term justification does refer to the declarative judicial act of God and not to the person who receives the benefit of this declarative act and is said to be justified. The declaration changes the status of the believer and not his or her nature. However, as John Gerstner relentlessly points out, it is not a declaration about or directed toward people who are not changed in their constituent nature. God never declares a change in the status of people who are unchanged in nature...The antinomian error (assumes) that God justifies people who are and remain unchanged. All who are justified possess faith. Faith abides as a necessary condition for justification. All who have faith are regenerate. Reformed theology sees regeneration as a necessary condition for faith. All who are regenerated are changed in their natures.
It is not change in our nature wrought by regeneration or our faith that flows from it that is the ground of our justification. That remains solely the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. But that righteousness is not imputed to unbelieving or unregenerate persons. (Justification by Faith Alone, Don Kistler, Ed. (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), The Forensic Nature of Justification, pp. 43-45).
The last statement is particularly opposed to Rome's salvation by grace thru works, in which one must actually become good enough to be with God, thus necessitating the invention of RC Purgatory. .
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.
And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory
Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)
And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10) ter 1:6)
And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10) :7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)
And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)
😂
Thanks bro. 😀 I wanted to read your post, but it turned my eyeballs inside out. 😄 I just couldn’t get it. 😞
You see and see but do not perceive, you keep on hearing but do not undertand; and you cannot, since you already claimed that you hate religion. In what do you trust? One cannot be saved just by reading and quoting the Bible, eh?
Thanks for this nugget of insight, Bro.
Mark 3:16
Fixed that.
😂
YOPIOS is my middle name. 👍😇
She sinned. I don’t need to prove that! I don’t need to prove you’ve sinned. God says so.
Could Mary have paid the price for your sin? Could she have been your redeemer? Her alleged sinlessness wouldn’t even require a co-redeeming partner. She could have been the perfect lamb of God - all by her sinless self.
I guess your baseless belief would have to buy that lie, too.
The depth of dark deception is beyond imagination.
Your position is so untenable and twisted that I think we’re done.
Goodbye.
True.
And those that weren’t protected those that were.
And the author of this piece and the people on this thread are trying to tell us that the RCC won’t even protect children’s bodies, but can definitely be trusted with our eternal souls.
I was actually focusing on the part on Garland and C.C. Caragounis’s study on kephas.
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.