Assurance of Salvation

[uniChristian]

Katholikos:

UniChristian, I meant that that was not your writing style. If you quote someone else’s words, it is customary (actually, it’s required) to credit your source.

Sharpen your pencil and get busy with your research. Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, excluded the so-called Apocrypha from the Bible.

A little dose of history does a body a world of good.

“The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church…The Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God…The church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its
missionary activities…Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York, 1999, page 1048-49.

“Because the Septuagint had become the canonical form of the Old Testament for the Christian community, those fourteen writings [which Protestants call Apocrypha] were also regarded as canonical…The supporters of the Reformation came to the conclusion that the Apocrypha (those fourteen books from the Septuagint not contained in the Hebrew scriptures) were of inferior quality to the remaining thirty-nine books in the Old Testament, and in the course of time eliminated them from their canon. Protestant Bibles in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were printed without the Apocrypha. Eventually a series of confessions (written statements of the basic Christian creed) confirmed this reduced canon from the Protestant side. The statements by the** Roman Catholic community** at the Council of Trent, however, continued to maintain the longer canon, which included the Apocrypha. That division of oponion has continued to the present day.” Understanding the New Testament, Fourth Edition, Howard Clark Kee, Prentice-Hall, 1983, page 384.

Both of the books cited are Protestant publications.

***“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” ***~ John Henry Newman, Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.

(emphasis mine)

JMJ Jay

You said “The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church”
The earliest Church is a Jewish Church and its scriptures are written in Hebrew. I think you will agree the Jews are in authority of their own canon. I suggest you take a look at the Jewish canon and when it was actually canonized before we go any further with this. Do we agree the Jews canonized the Torah in 90C.E?

 

[pendoko]

George2:

How could every person’s personal interpretation of scripture be the same?

Scripture itself warns in Peter not to interpret it apart from the community.

This is because Jesus said he would send us the Holy Spirit to guide the church.

I listen intently to the three scripture readings at Mass each Sunday and the priest’s homily.

I also read the catechism which the Church, inspired by the spirit helps me make sense of the many contradictions, allegorical language, literal language, history and legend in this controversial, but useful book.

The Church assembled this book and the church is our authority. To say that a xian needs this book and to be literate is actually unscriptural, it would be implying that xians in the first 400 years of the church died with no authority - as there was no assembled canon.

-former protestant who loves the Bible, reads it for advice but when pressed about the meaning, defers to the Church ex officio, who by her offices is there to guide and teach me.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

It was true that God had used the “influence” of the Catholic Church to gather the books of the Bible BUT it is also true that the Catholic Church never knew about salvation and God according to the written words of God.

The “written” words of God is much more accurate than the “verbal” teaching of the word of God. This is where the Catholic Church had fallen.

It is the “written” words of God that will guide the real Church of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. By using this standard, the Catholic Church is falling short.

 

[pendoko]

Why is that impossible? Does irresistible graceEdestroy the free will of the Christian?

When a person had wholeheartedly accepted Jesus as his/her Savior and God and Lord, that person was automatically God’s child. That person had already surrendered his FREE will and volition to God. From that moment, God was already His Father and that person is already God’s adopted child. God the Father will surely protect this “adopted child” from Lucifer and demons attack.
That is why it is impossible for the real child of God to be separated from God SINCE it is not the man who holds God’s hands, it is God who holds that child’s hands!

Of course, in the course of time, this child may commit sin, possible since God did not yet destroy Lucifer and his demons BUT salvation and relationship will forever remain.

 

[pendoko]

He can secure it - who says He can’t? All we said was you can not judge yourself into the future. You must persevere, you must remain “in Him”. You’re confusing God’s ability to make it happen with your ability to know that it will happen for you. It makes the rest of what you wrote pointless.
PENDOKO: My point was that: God had already SECURED every believers (children)'s future not what the Catholic and other churches are saying.

Well if citizenship in Heaven were already secured what difference would it make if you believed it or not? There are CONDITIONS OF CITIZENSHIP which involve a life long commitment. Unless you claim to have knowledge that you will not forsake God and thereby lose your citizenship, then you don’t have the absolute assurance you claim. If you do claim to have knowledge of the future we’ll all simply ignore you!
PENDOKO: Yes, there are conditions. And after you’ve become a citizen of Heaven (John 1:12), then, you need to work for it…meaning, you need to really be serious about it since you are alreaday Heaven-bound.

Simple. By leading them to the one who can - christ - and teaching them how to remain in His Grace.
Another good reason would be that if following them was what God commanded and that it was the best chance you had. You simply want more than you deserve. Why do you deserve eternal security anyway?
PENDOKO: A blind can’t lead a fellow blind. Why do I deserve eternal security? Because I was created by God. I did not ask God to give me life, and yet I had life. I did not ask God to give me Lucifer and demons in earth, and yet we are living together sides by sides, so I am deserve that eternal destiny of Heaven. Thanks God, He logically did it for me.
I don’t understand your question, but the verse you cited simply says that " to those who did accept him He gave POWER TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD" No mention of knowledge or completion of eternal salvation. Children can reject their parents you know.
PENDOKO: You don’t really understand the Bible. ONCE you’ve become God’s child, you will surely go to Heaven.Why? Because you are God’s child!

Do you realize how short the Bible needs to be for your message? But it isn’t. It goes on and on with examples of how to live the Christian life with admonitions against continuing to sin. Why? Why are there verses like this: “Beloved I urge you as aliens and sojourners to keep away from worldly desires which wage war against the soul?” What does wage war against the soul mean? What do you think happens if you lose that war?
PENDOKO: After you become God’s child, you automatically citizen of Heaven. And yet of course, we should live as God’s child, not God’s enemies. Since Lucifer and all his demons are still living with us sides by sides, then, we will be forced surely to commit sin BUT God had promised victory above Lucifer and his demons! So, we are always be the winner. How can God help you, listen to you, and leads you if YOU ARE NOT HIS CHILD? You can’t expect that! Be God’s child first, then, do whatt is to become God’s child!

 

[pendoko]

Philthy:

Is it not enough that God saved us from hopeless damnation by sending His son and that we can know that if we remain in Him we will be saved? It seems like quite a deal to me…
Let me share with you an analogy that some have liked. It originally dealt with the issue of faith and works:
You have a pot, a watering can, a water supply and some dirt and you want to grow a flower.

You are hopeless without a seed. Nothing you do works. Your works do nothing!

God comes along and freely gives us a seed which begins to grow.Thank you God!

He also tells us - I’ll provide the Son, but you need to water the plant or it will die!

You water the plant at first but then stop and after a while it dies.

Explanation:

The pot, can, water and dirt - everything we are - is us in our sinful state.
The desire for a flower is the desire for eternal life
The attempt to grow the flower without a seed is works without faith
The seed is God’s gift of Grace and without it there will be no “flower”
Jesus is the Sun - the metaphor was to good to pass up - also necessary
The statement by God is His Word - it tells us what we need to do.

"Failing to water the plant is “faith without works”
Watering the plant is the “works” part of eternal life, continuing in the faith - ignore them, and the plant dies. It grew for a while, but you let it die.

Phil

Your explanation is some what colorful and yet holds any point about salvation.

We need to remember that GOD had created all things, even Lucifer, demons, and all things around the whole entire universe. And God had created human for His own glory.

And it is God’s plan that all humans should go to Heaven by JUST BELIEVING Him. In old times, especially in the Bible times, to say, “I believe” had great meaning and impact in one’s life. Hebrews 11 had given us fully the explanation of believing God. It is God who had made humans to enter sin, it is God who made humans to be saved, it is God who controlled our lives and future, it is God who gives us this “eternal assurance of salvation”. No humans, I repeat, no humans by their own powers can claim that they had followed God and obeyed God completely. No humans, even priests, can’t live a perfect life. So, no humans can’t follow your points that we should “remain” in God through our power. That is too much burden for human! The Bible was clear to say that God is the One who holds our hands for salvation after we believed and received Jesus Christ. It is not, I repeat, it is not humans who holds God’s hands. If it does, then, God is so cruel and so illogical and so satanic. He may be worst than Lucifer!

BUT

It is God who holds humans’ hands for salvation. Our part is to believe Him and trust Him only!

 

[montanaman]

It was true that God had used the “influence” of the Catholic Church to gather the books of the Bible BUT it is also true that the Catholic Church never knew about salvation and God according to the written words of God.

The “written” words of God is much more accurate than the “verbal” teaching of the word of God. This is where the Catholic Church had fallen.

It is the “written” words of God that will guide the real Church of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. By using this standard, the Catholic Church is falling short.

Let me see if I’ve gotten this right: The Catholic Church was established by Christ, but it was only temporary? The Catholic Church, despite a massive paper trail to the contrary “never knew about salvation?” It seems more likely to you that a bunch of European malcontent revolutionaries rejecting what had been taught for a millenium and a half were the only ones to “get it?”

I’m sure, on some level, you’re very sincere. My more charitable brothers and sisters here would take me to the woodshed if I expressed my true opinions about your scholarship, but suffice it to say you are way off the mark if you think Scripture is contrary to Tradition or somehow superior to it. (Is Jesus superior to God, or vice/versa?) You, in your infinite wisdom, have made an infallible determination that the Church founded by Christ fell, despite Christ’s promise that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it.

---

I really shouldn’t check these forums before I’ve had my coffee, or if I haven’t had a good night’s sleep. Reading condescending pontifications of people uninformed about Catholic doctrine–or just general history–makes me want to retch.

 

[Katholikos]

uniChristian:

You said “The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church”

***I ***didn’t say it. Those words are from the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, as I reported.

The earliest Church is a Jewish Church and its scriptures are written in Hebrew.

The Jewish house of prayer is a synagogue, not a church. The Septuagint was the “Bible” of both the synagogue and the earliest church. The Jews at the time of Jesus had two collections of sacred writings – one in Hebrew and one in Greek. The translation into Greek, known as the Septuagint or LXX, was completed c. 250 B. C. and was made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews whose ancestors had been deported to Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy during the Diaspora in 587 B.C. and who had forgotten Hebrew. Both the Hebrew and the LXX were used in first-century A.D. Jewish synagogues.

I think you will agree the Jews are in authority of their own canon.

Yes, but Jesus and the Apostles are the authority over the Christian scriptures, and they used both the LXX and the Hebrew. The Church inherited the 46 writings from the LXX that she canonized in 382, 393, 397, and 405 (the same canon each time) from Jesus and the Apostles. About 86% of OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX; 14% are from the Hebrew.

I suggest you take a look at the Jewish canon and when it was actually canonized before we go any further with this. Do we agree the Jews canonized the Torah in 90C.E?

There was a council of Palestinian rabbis (Pharisees) at Jamnia (Palestine) c. 90-100 A.D. that, in effect, set the boundaries of the Jewish scriptures to include only those that had a corresponding text in Hebrew. It was a Hebrew-only “canon.” The importance of this will be covered below. While there is no authoritative body of decision-makers in Judaism (or Protestantism!) this exclusion of Greek writings eventually spread throughout the Jewish world. The Masoretic text, which all Jews follow, excludes the Greek.

As the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity points out, the “Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God [by the Jews, before its exclusion].” Jews had considered it the Word of God in their synagogues at one time, and then they didn’t, a reaction against the Catholic Church, which used the LXX as her scriptures.

The exclusion of any Greek text meant that five books that were originally written in Hebrew were shucked from the Jewish canon. The Hebrew text was lost to antiquity after the Greek translation was made, and the writings were preserved only in the Greek. These are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and 1 Maccabees. The only two of the books originated in Greek: Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are fragments of the Hebrew Sirach and Tobit.

JMJ Jay (noting that we’ve hijacked Tiffany’s thread; this is not a Bible thread .)

 

[Katholikos]

pendoko:

And it is God’s plan that all humans should go to Heaven by JUST BELIEVING Him.

Then why didn’t Jesus and the Apostles teach this?

The Bible was clear to say that God is the One who holds our hands for salvation after we believed and received Jesus Christ.
… Our part is to believe Him and trust Him only!

If OSAS is so clearly taught in the Bible, why is it a minority opinion even among Sola Scriptura Protestants?

We have to believe Him, trust Him, and obey Him – we have to keep the commandments and live a sin-free life. If we fail, we have recourse through Confession, a gift God gave us to help us get to heaven (John 20:19-23). The wages of sin is death. The biblical and historical evidence is overwhelming. OSAS is a doctrine of man, not of God. Jesus and the Apostles never taught it. Such a doctrine first appears in the historical record in the 16th century.

If any biblical interpretation does not conform to the teaching of the Catholic Church, who learned her doctrines from the Apostles, it is a misinterpretation.

JMJ Jay

 

[Matt16_18]

pendoko:

When a person had wholeheartedly accepted Jesus as his/her Savior and God and Lord, that person was automatically God’s child. That person had already surrendered his FREE will and volition to God. From that moment, God was already His Father and that person is already God’s adopted child. God the Father will surely protect this “adopted child” from Lucifer and demons attack.

There is no doubt that to be a Christian one must surrender his will for God’s will. That is why Jesus taught us to pray, “thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”. And there is no doubt that it is only by God’s grace that one is able to surrender one’s will. But you have fallen into the snares and deceptions of Calvinism in your understanding of surrendering one’s will. Grace does NOT destroy the free will of the Christian. Our free will is a precious and holy gift from God, and without free will, we would be nothing more than an animal. Grace frees us from the bondage to sin - grace does not degrade us into becoming animals who act without free will.

Of course, in the course of time, this child may commit sin, possible since God did not yet destroy Lucifer and his demons …

Oh, you are contradicting your self now. A child of God cannot sin, but a child of God can sin. It is not surprising that you would contradict yourself, because Calvinism is full of contradiction. No, you are quite wrong about grace being insufficient to bring us to perfection. God is more powerful that demons.

“For with God nothing will be impossible."
Luke 1:3-37

“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
2Cor. 12:9

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Matt. 5:48

"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matt. 7:21

 

[Matt16_18]

pendoko:

No humans, even priests, can’t live a perfect life.

Catholics agree that apart from God’s grace that a Christian cannot live a perfect life. But Catholics also believe that with God, all things are possible, and we know that Jesus commanded us to be perfect.

You are saying Christian perfection is impossible, and you are contradicting Jesus. This is what is so very wrong with Calvinism. Calvinism destroys the very heart of the Gospel by saying the call to Christian perfection is unachievable without destroying one’s free will.

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Matt. 5:48

 

[Katholikos]

pendoko:

Of course, in the course of time, this child may commit sin, possible since God did not yet destroy Lucifer and his demons BUT salvation and relationship will forever remain.

We have no cause for concern, then, about the soul of Charles Templeton, once an assistant to Billy Graham, who left Graham and became an agnostic. It’s all documented in his book, Farewell to God.

Charles Templeton is in heaven, even though he denied Christianity – said it wasn’t true – just because he was once a believer, huh? Even though he caused others to lose their faith as well? I’m sure he has the best seat in heaven, right next to Jesus.

Welcome to heaven, Charles. You may have lost all faith, but God’s not gonna hold that against you! After all, you did believe it – once upon a time, and that’s all God expects of you.

Oh, I forgot. Charles Templeton wasn’t really saved when he worked all over the world for Billy Graham and preached the Gospel and founded his own church – he just thought he was saved. :whacky:

JMJ Jay

 

[Tiffany]

Matt16_18:

Catholics agree that apart from God’s grace that a Christian cannot live a perfect life. But Catholics also believe that with God, all things are possible, and we know that Jesus commanded us to be perfect.

You are saying Christian perfection is impossible, and you are contradicting Jesus. This is what is so very wrong with Calvinism. Calvinism destroys the very heart of the Gospel by saying the call to Christian perfection is unachievable without destroying one’s free will.

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matt. 5:48

 

[Tiffany]

QUOTE=Matt16_18]Catholics agree that apart from God’s grace that a Christian cannot live a perfect life. But Catholics also believe that with God, all things are possible, and we know that Jesus commanded us to be perfect.

You are saying Christian perfection is impossible, and you are contradicting Jesus. This is what is so very wrong with Calvinism. Calvinism destroys the very heart of the Gospel by saying the call to Christian perfection is unachievable without destroying one’s free will.

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matt. 5:48

All things are possible through Christ…I would agree. And the Bible has many verses about striving to be perfect and that we are to strive to be like Christ who is perfect. However even Paul the apostle worte that he sinned and did what he hated.
He wrote:
“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:14-25

Paul an apostle of christ is saying in present tense “O wretched man that I am” He realizes that he still has his sin nature even though he is a child of God and he does that which he hates. I would say that if Paul proclaimed himself a wretched man…than I have little hope of becoming perfect as Christ. Does this mean that I should give up. No, Paul says " Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:12-14

And just because God’s grace covers our sin does that mean that we are to sin that Grace may abbound? Paul also says:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:1-4

This verse says that we should walk in newness of life, not that we always do, but that we should. Just as Paul said in the ealier passage “I count not myself to have apprehended” He knows he isn’t perfect and still has his sin nature ('So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin") but he strives to be like Christ none the less (“I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”).
I hopes this helps.
Tiff

 

[Katholikos]

pendoko:

It was true that God had used the “influence” of the Catholic Church to gather the books of the Bible BUT it is also true that the Catholic Church never knew about salvation and God according to the written words of God.

The “written” words of God is much more accurate than the “verbal” teaching of the word of God. This is where the Catholic Church had fallen.

It is the “written” words of God that will guide the real Church of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. By using this standard, the Catholic Church is falling short.

The NT was written by the living, organic, teaching Catholic Church. The Church wrote it, but never knew what it said?

Puhleeeeeeeeze!

Take a look at the introductions to each of the letters. The Church was writing to herself, for herself – to her own members. The NT was not written for outsiders, but for believers. Look at Luke/Acts. It was written to a fellow Christian named Theophilus.
Matthew, Mark, and John were not addressed to anyone specific, which means they were written for the Church at large. This is confirmed by Justin Martyr and other early Christians, who called the Gospels the memoirs of the Apostles.

Any interpretation of NT Scripture that does not conform to the teaching of the Catholic Church who wrote it is a misinterpretation.

JMJ Jay

 

[Sherlock]

Tiffany,

You wrote: “And just because God’s grace covers our sin does that mean that we are to sin that Grace may abbound?”

I’m interested in your reaction to this quote, then, by Martin Luther:

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

 

[uniChristian]

Katholikos: you said “Sharpen your pencil and get busy with your research. Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, excluded the so-called Apocrypha from the Bible”. I would suggest you do the same. I don’t like the game of ones up man ship but I think there is sufficient historical evidence to re affirm what I have written. I think it only fair to lay down certain criteria if I am to debate you on the authenticity issue of the apocrypha.

1. 
   *]I don’t really know what you are arguing although you seem to think Martin Luther changed the canon of the Old Testament.
   *]Lets not argue semantics, the term’s apocrypha and deuterocanonical (second canon) are synonymous.
   *]We must agree that neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Reformers had the authority to canonize the Jewish Old Testament.
   *]Christianity is a Jewish faith and not of Roman origin.
   
   If we agree on these four things, we can have a logical debate in regard to the apocrypha. Before we start I would like to ask you a few simple questions.
   1. 
      *]What does it say to you when not a single apocryphal book claims to have been inspired by God?
      *]If the apocryphal books are inspired, why weren’t the writers of these books confirmed by divine miracles like the Old and New Testament writers?
      *]If these apocryphal books are inspired, why didn’t they contain predictive prophecy like the Old and New Testament books?
      *]What does it suggest to you that the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Old Testament but never from the apocrypha?
      *]If the Jewish Torah was canonized in 90C.E, how could Martin Luther have made a change in their canon some 1400 years later?
      *]What does it say to you that many of the early fathers were convinced the apocrypha is not inspired by God? Notably Origin, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem were some who opposed the apocrypha.
      
      These are but a few questions I will pose, I know you will indulge me some of your own. Know this, I mean no threat to the Roman Catholic Church and I hope you take none.

 

[uniChristian]

the so-called Apocrypha from the Bible. I was wondering why you thought I still used a pencil? Windows xp pro baby the only way to go!

 

[Katholikos]

uniChristian:

the so-called Apocrypha from the Bible. I was wondering why you thought I still used a pencil? Windows xp pro baby the only way to go!

uniChristian, “sharpen your pencil” is colloquialism – not meant to be taken literally. Perhaps English is not your native language???

JMJ Jay

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

pendoko:

And it is God’s plan that all humans should go to Heaven by JUST BELIEVING Him. !

Hi pendoko!

What about love? What about people who believe in God but don’t love Him with all their heart, soul, strength and mind or their neighbor as themselves? I know people who “just believe”, nothing else. The “just believe” idea flies in the face of the rest of scripture especially the passages that speak of love being greater than faith and the only thing that matters is faith working through love. Just like scripture never says “faith alone” it never says “just believe”. Is faith necessary? Yep. But not faith alone. Faith + Love! Is belief necessary? Yep. But not just belief. Belief + Love!

In Christ,
Nancy

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Matt16_18]

Tiffany

Jesus explicitly commands us to be perfect. Are you saying that Paul teaches that is impossible to be perfect? Does Paul contradict Jesus?