Evangelical vs Protestant

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus2

The disagreement and division demonstrated in this thread among Catholics makes me feel like saying: “I rest my case.”

Nope you cannot rest your case. You raised a lot of points. I refuted them. Now the ball is in your court to refute them.

All of this supposed “unity” among Catholics simply does not exist as they might think once they begin to actually find out what each other actually believes.

What we each of us beileve (if we digress from the teaching of the church) has impact only each of us because it is us who are misinformed.

The teaching of the Catholic Church remains the same. Or do you want me to explain that in more detail.

This is what I have been saying all along. Usemelord rejects the authoritative canons of Trent (as do millions of others), yet we (Protestants) are supposed to believe that there is this perfect unity of belief in the RCC.

If **usemelord **rejects the canon then that is is how own point of view that is not the teching of the Catholic.

You protestants on the other hand have alll different teachings per church.

I never implied that this kind of sin is not prevalent among Protestants, sir.

Well then you should not have brought up the issue. It is a non-issue and derails topic.

That is your terribly mistaken conclusion based on your prior commitment to classical Roman Catholic theology.

No it is my conclusion based on your post. You really ought to be more careful with your posts. And no it’s not sir. It’s miss.

In fact, all a statement like yours does is demonstrate that you have completely missed my point:

Nope, statements like mine addressed the issue that statements like yours make.

SIN is the problem and it NEEDS to be repented from regardless of whatever denominational label a person considers himself or herself.

Exactly! But you started accusing Catholics of being sinful as if such sins are not commited in your own church. People who live in glass houses should never ever throw stones.

The matter at hand is about TRUTH. Not behaviour. So get back on topic.

[quoteYou list a couple of well known hypocritical names in Protestantism. So what? Should I provide an exhaustive list of Catholic priests who were involved in pedophilia just in the past year? Would that suffice? Needless to say, once again you have missed the point.
[/quote]

So what’s the point? The point is earlier on you said that people who proclaim Jesus as Lord and savioiur are “save” (I am assuming you are also an adherent of OSAS).
Now these two have proclaimed Jesus as their Lord and saviour. Are they saved?

The whole point of my posting their names is regarding your theology.

So you see I am able to stay on topic.

You go on to say that all Protestants approve of sin and divorce. Do I even need to respond to this? Or should I wait for even your Catholic colleagues to rebuke you? Are you speaking for ALL Protestants, my friend??

Okay maybe not all of you approve of divorce. Which proves my other point once again. If some of you think they have been guided to believe that divorce is okay, and some of you think it is wrong, which one of you is correct. If the Holy Spirit is truly the guide of these denominations, surely you would all agree on thing that the divorce is not permissible. But here on this issue you have different theologies.

Nope there is no erroneous thinking in my post (save perhaps lumping you all in the one basket but my point remains valid and true.

Narrow-path, I have addressed quite a few of the issues you raised earlier on in the thread. It would be good if you could actually reply to them point by point as well. This is the second time I have asked you for that

 

[joe370]

Hey narrow_path, you said:

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

You forgot to mention this:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

The bible agrees with both; it’s really pretty straight forward; “Faith without works is dead” - it’s just that simple!

James is quite clear on the subject of faith and works: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [Yes or No?] - If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works…

Which one does James opt for? - faith without your works, or faith by works?

…You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! [even the devil has faith] - But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? [here’s proof] - Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

He says that faith without works is dead --4 times; why don’t you believe him?

Marten Luther said that the Book of James was “a right strawy epistle” [something of little value]; he didn’t like it, because it conflicted with his new doctrine of justification by faith without works; this was not believed by anyone for the first 1500 years of Christianity; were they all wrong for 1500 years?

Paul is quite clear on the subject as well: "Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God, since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus…What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3

Clearly Paul is juxtaposing the works of the O.T. law with faith in Jesus Christ; they are now justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus; no doubt about that. The point Paul is making is: Man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, not apart from good works in general. The very last thing Paul says is: “Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.” The emphasis is a shift from the O.T. law to the N.T. faith in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, good works have redemptive value because they are works done in Christ and for Christ, Who’s powerdrives them. Without Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, our works would be done in vain. So essentially, the works of charity and obedience of a Christian are redemptive ONLY through Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross. No cross, no redemption – period! We are in agreement.

Jesus is quite clear on the subject as well: Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke 9 - So much for: once saved always saved!

 

[joe370]

Therefore, there is this most unfortunate situation in which your church does not consider me a brother in Christ no matter what any Catholic may or may not say. Also keep in mind that this is not a singular occurrence. Like I mentioned earlier, I believe the last time I counted there were 50 or 60 anathemas placed on me.

What do you tell a non-Christian who says: Jesus is unnecessary for my salvation? Are you hon.est or do you simply placate him? Do you want the C.C. to be honest or placate? If you tell that non-Christian: you will never make it into heaven, you are essentially saying: let him be anathema, due to the fact that he’s going to hell and not heaven; what’s the difference? The difference is: you do not have the authority to say that; Jesus empowered just one church to teach all that he commanded - agreed?

Of course, this would mean the thief on the cross would have also been placed under this curse as well…you know, the one whom Christ told “Today you will be with me in paradise” Him along with every other non-Catholic Christian we read of in Scripture are under this curse apparently from the “true church.”

The fact that the thief on the cross made it to heaven merely illustrates that God is not bound by His decrees. Jesus’ established church had yet to start evangelizing at this point, so the thief and all those people that preceded His church, are exempt. How they are judged, only God knows. Tell me something: where is the “true church” built by Christ circa 33 ad?

And, of course there will be testimonies on both sides of spectrum. However, I must confess that while I do not doubt the sincerity of the conversion experiences I have read, most often while reading of a Catholic convert, there seems to be Scripture texts taken out of context to fit into a Magisterial interpretation (if there is any mention of Scripture at all).

The Magisterial office codified/canonized the bible; why would she put these books in the bible knowing full well, that later, they would have to take things out of context to fit into her belief system? I will go toe to toe with you vis-a-vis anything using just the man-made doctrine - sola scriptura.

I can say this with confidence having heard these testimonies first hand, and having read the “This Rock” magazine which is available through this website. I would say the 1 Peter passage referring to baptism is perhaps the most abused text that I consistently read from Catholic converts.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Why didn’t He just say spirit?

1 Peter 3:18-22 - He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand–with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

The fact that he says: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body…proves that literal water was being applied - agreed? If not then Jesus’ established church is was wrong for the first 300 years of Christianity…for the first 1500 years of Christianity, making the Holy Spirit fallible, for He did not guide her into all truth. Agreed?

But in my estimation, these “infallible” anathema’s by themselves will not condemn people to hell…but a rejection of Messiah and a refusal to repent does. So, I will not try to sway people from the RCC if they already are saved (even though they may not know it.) But I will try to sway people away from any church (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) who have counted on their deeds for their salvation. That is all I’m saying.

One more time just for good measure:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. Are we finally in agreement?

Nobody knows who is going to hell; only God. You are no different than the non-Christian; he doesn’t believe Jesus is necessary; you don’t believe that the church that gave you your bible is necessary, even though the church is the only thing Jesus built. However, you certainly have a right to believe that, just as the non-Christian does. Your bible says that the church is the body of Christ to which He is the head and savior; He is the savior of His church…He is the savior of those people who belong to the house of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. His church is absolutely necessary for our salvation; Jesus did not build in vain - agreed?

 

[narrow_path]

Usemelord- This verse comes to mind…

“If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” (1 Cor. 3:12-16)

I think that some Christians will have precious little to show come Judgment Day, yet they will be saved, but only as one “escaping the flames.” When we are rewarded for what we have done with our time, talent and treasure, these people will have almost nothing to show for the time spend here on earth…yet they will be saved. I know quite a few people who are headed down this path…

 

[paul_c]

Usemelord- This verse comes to mind…

“If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” (1 Cor. 3:12-16)

I think that some Christians will have precious little to show come Judgment Day, yet they will be saved, but only as one “escaping the flames.” When we are rewarded for what we have done with our time, talent and treasure, these people will have almost nothing to show for the time spend here on earth…yet they will be saved. I know quite a few people who are headed down this path…

Why do you ignore the rebutals to your positions of Sole Fide and OSAS? Have you no answer? Do you beleive that God is Just? Why would a Just God justify someone who have done no good in thier lives and whose faith, therefore must be judged as insincere? If you have Faith and love for God, you will do his will? Don’t you agree? If not, what is your love and faith but empty words. Do you think God is so easily fooled.

And do you think your support of those that don’t demonstrate their faith by love and Good works is a work of God? Really? What more would Satan want than a bunch of people feeling they can sin freely just because they mouth the words, “Jesus is Lord”, perhaps only once in their lives. You need to do some real soul searching on this…

 

[paul_c]

Question for all of you, Protestant and Catholic alike: What about the millions upon millions of churchgoers who attend services on a regular basis, who sincerely believe in the saving power of Christ, but lack the desire to do anything else but go to church; i.e. works are absent. Are they doomed to hell? My wife, for example, does not have a “higher education” and possesses only a superficial understanding of the Bible. However, she lives a Christ-centered life although preferring, at the same time, not to wear her religion on her sleeve, as it were. There are tens of millions just like her in both the Protestant and Catholic churches throughout the country. Because they consciously elect not to actively participate in performing good works, how then is their salvation in jeopardy, if at all? Aren’t we all charged with the duty to work on our salvation with “fear and trembling”? What say you, and you, and you?

God made every one of us uniquely for a purpose, giving us the skills necessary to carry out that service. Some are called to teach, some to preach, some to do Good works. The Body of Christ has many parts. You will recognize this from St. Paul’s Epistles.

None of us are in a position to judge anyone else. We don’t know what is in their hearts or what God’s intentions are for them. We do know however, that we are all called to Holiness and to love God and our neighbors. We all do that in our own way but probably most of us do not help others to our full potential. Those that truly love God and neighbor will demonstrate that in some tangible way, whether it be in kindness to those that they deal with or great works of mercy.

 

[narrow_path]

Paul C-

I am not ignoring anyone on this thread, but I will need time to respond as I have another busy day ahead of me…perhaps tonight I will get an opportunity. Please be patient.

Also, what you say my views are on OSAS and Sola Fide, I do not recognize as my views. You have grossly misrepresented my positions on these issues. I have repeatedly said that genuinely saved individuals WILL do good works. It will not be optional. But rather, they will do these good works out of gratitude for the salvation they have undeservingly received. You seem to think that salvation EQUALS faith PLUS works. This is where we must be careful…God knows the motivations of His creatures for doing the works that they do. I remember my father (who was raised Catholic) would constantly use profanity, pornography, gamble and drink excessively. Yet, he would donate X amount of dollars toward charities and volunteer at the soup kitchen…thinking that a New Birth was not required for salvation. This is where the deception creeps in…works in themselves mean NOTHING in terms of HOW we get to heaven. However, as James so clearly stated, “Faith without works is dead.” I couldn’t agree more. This is because James understood that good works FLOW from a REGENERATE believer in Christ.

to be continued…

 

[usemelord]

Narrow_path and Paul C: Thanks for your observations and comments. Narrow_path cited Scripture from I Cor. and this, I believe, is where the concept of Purgatory comes from. Simply stated, we all leave this earthly existence is varying degrees of states of Grace, and, therefore, need to be “purified by fire.” Before beginning my RCIA journey I can recall having an interview with the gentleman heading up the RCIA program and during that interview he asked if I had any specific questions. Yes, “Where does the concept of Purgatory come from? That word cannot be found in the Bible, so why shouldn’t I believe that it is nothing more than something fabricated by the Catholic church?” He didn’t hesitate for a second and responded by saying, “You won’t find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible either.” Then he handed me an article explaining the whole notion of Purgatory which was, importantly for me, based on Scripture. As I explained yesterday, my wife is not one to be very demonstrative about her faith. That’s just her nature. However, she does do works of kindness for our neighbors (who are not Catholic) such as making meals for a neighbor recovering from cancer, and another friend from church recovering from back surgery. She does not want to be noticed or recognized for what she does. This reminds me of the Scripture where men are on the street corner wanting to be noticed for their acts, and we hear, “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven.” As such, I have to believe that my wife’s unselfish acts of mercy and her sincere heart for the Lord stand her in good stead. Now, all I have to worry about is me!

 

[narrow_path]

As tempting as it is to respond to the issue of Purgatory, I will keep my word and address Paul C , Joe370 and Benedictus2.

Joe 370 stated: "What do you tell a non-Christian who says: Jesus is unnecessary for my salvation? Are you hon.est or do you simply placate him? Do you want the C.C. to be honest or placate? If you tell that non-Christian: you will never make it into heaven, you are essentially saying: let him be anathema, due to the fact that he’s going to hell and not heaven; what’s the difference? The difference is: you do not have the authority to say that; Jesus empowered just one church to teach all that he commanded - agreed?

No, we are not agreed. I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ, nor would it have been necessary. In fact, I do not believe the RCC EVEN EXISTS from purely a biblical perspective. Sure, we have men that have called themselves “Popes” in church history; but this does not prove anything. The real issue is a BIBLICAL one, and I have already elaborated on why I do not believe in the one “true church.” Due to this, you and I have a completely different concept of what the Body of Christ or Church actually represents. I believe it represents ALL who have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ - regardless of denominational affiliation (sometimes no denomination at all…especially with death bed conversions). You believe the Church to be a HEIRARCHICAL INSTITUTION in which worshipping the Lord in the same building somehow means there is Unity among the members on an individual basis.

The fact that the thief on the cross made it to heaven merely illustrates that God is not bound by His decrees. Jesus’ established church had yet to start evangelizing at this point, so the thief and all those people that preceded His church, are exempt. How they are judged, only God knows. Tell me something: where is the “true church” built by Christ circa 33 ad?

So God is making decrees and ignoring them? Why make them at all then? This is inconsistent with how God operates (had He actually chosen to makes these decrees). I believe the origins of these decrees are man-made with most of the material borrowed from early church fathers. It is great to learn from those who have gone before us, but I simply am not willing to take the writings of the fathers and use it as infallible, God-breathed information. Rather, I’ll stick with the words of Christ and the apostles as they have been preserved for us.

“The Magisterial office codified/canonized the bible; why would she put these books in the bible knowing full well, that later, they would have to take things out of context to fit into her belief system? I will go toe to toe with you vis-a-vis anything using just the man-made doctrine - sola scriptura.”

I believe you are badly mistaken. See my earlier post for why I do not accept the idea that the RCC gave us the Bible. Sola Scriptura deserves a thread of its own; there is not enough space required to open up another issue on this thread. But, yes, I do believe the FINAL authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to was SCRIPTURE. The last time I read through the gospels, I kept track of how many times Jesus refutes His critics by saying or implying, “It is written…” and I came up with 86 times!! Just in the gospels.

continued…

 

[narrow_path]

"Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.Why didn’t He just say spirit? 1 Peter 3:18-22 - He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand–with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. The fact that he says: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body…proves that literal water was being applied - agreed? If not then Jesus’ established church is was wrong for the first 300 years of Christianity…for the first 1500 years of Christianity, making the Holy Spirit fallible, for He did not guide her into all truth. Agreed?”

No, not hardly. Your errors are begetting more errors at this point. Yes, water symbolizes baptism. Yes, baptism symbolizes regeneration. Being born of water and the Spirit is a refernce to the New Birth. Being buried to your old life and raised to newness of life through the Lord’s resurrection power - that is the essence of biblical baptism. But it is not surprising that an institution which Christ never established could be subject to err. It’s been happening for 2000 years. Age does not mean that it is correct. Judaism is much older than Christianity, yet it is essentially an anti-Christ religion. Jewish people today think they are losing their Jewishness if they become Christian converts. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have several Messianic Jewish brothers and they are amazing people who continually reach their friends and family who reject Messiah (Yeshua).

“One more time just for good measure:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. Are we finally in agreement? Nobody knows who is going to hell; only God. You are no different than the non-Christian; he doesn’t believe Jesus is necessary; you don’t believe that the church that gave you your bible is necessary, even though the church is the only thing Jesus built. However, you certainly have a right to believe that, just as the non-Christian does. Your bible says that the church is the body of Christ to which He is the head and savior; He is the savior of His church…He is the savior of those people who belong to the house of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. His church is absolutely necessary for our salvation; Jesus did not build in vain - agreed?”

1. I continually say ONLY Jesus IS necessary
2. The RCC DID NOT give us the Bible as you have been conditioned to believe
3. You say, “His church is necessary for our salvation” – please show me in Scripture where you are getting this. I have read the Bible 45 times from cover to cover and NEVER have come across any such notion that we need the RCC for salvation.

 

[narrow_path]

More from Joe370:

"You forgot to mention this: CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. The bible agrees with both; it’s really pretty straight forward; “Faith without works is dead” - it’s just that simple! James is quite clear on the subject of faith and works: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [Yes or No?] - If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works… Which one does James opt for? - faith without your works, or faith by works?..You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! [even the devil has faith] - But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? [here’s proof] - Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2 He says that faith without works is dead --4 times; why don’t you believe him?Marten Luther said that the Book of James was “a right strawy epistle” [something of little value]; he didn’t like it, because it conflicted with his new doctrine of justification by faith without works; this was not believed by anyone for the first 1500 years of Christianity; were they all wrong for 1500 years? Paul is quite clear on the subject as well: "Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God, since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus…What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3 Clearly Paul is juxtaposing the works of the O.T. law with faith in Jesus Christ; they are now justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus; no doubt about that. The point Paul is making is: Man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, not apart from good works in general. The very last thing Paul says is: “Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.” The emphasis is a shift from the O.T. law to the N.T. faith in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, good works have redemptive value because they are works done in Christ and for Christ, Who’s powerdrives them. Without Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, our works would be done in vain. So essentially, the works of charity and obedience of a Christian are redemptive ONLY through Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross. No cross, no redemption – period! We are in agreement. Jesus is quite clear on the subject as well: Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke 9 - So much for: once saved always saved!”

Well someone really got you good, Joe 370. Here is the issue: LIFE EVERLASTING.

continued…

 

[narrow_path]

…continued (Joe 370)

Eternal life does not begin when we die but when we embrace the Savior who died in our place and it will continue for all eternity; hence the name ETERNAL LIFE. Just as our physical birth cannot be undone so also our spriritual birth in Christ cannot be undone. When speaking to Nicademus, Jesus said, “Ye must be born again.” He DID NOT say “Ye must be born again and again and again and again…” There is no precedent for bouncing in and out of salvation as you have described. Of course we must persevere. Of course we must continue in charity and good works. But remember the promise in Philippians 1:6 where Paul praises God for the confidence that “he who began a good work in you WILL carry it on to completion.” That His promise. I’m sure your aware of the passages addressing eternal security. Some would include Ephesians 1:13-14 where Pauls provides the surety that “you were marked in Him WITH A SEAL the PROMISED Holy Spirit, who is a deposit GUARANTEEING our inheritance until the redemtion of those who are God’s possession.” Or, John 5:24 with Jesus declaring that “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me HAS (present tense) eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” If that is not clear enough please see John 10:27-29, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I GIVE (present tense) them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish; NO ONE can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; NO ONE can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” Also see Jude 24 and 1 Cor. 1:8 to name a few.

You ask, "He says that faith without works is dead --4 times; why don’t you believe him? Who said I didn’t believe him?? This is what happens when you make wrongheaded assumptions. James is absolutely correct! But I have explained this before - James knew that although we are saved by faith alone (he would not contradict Paul), he understood that true saving faith is never alone! Therefore, good works WILL flow from genuine faith in Christ for salvation. Perhaps we are closer to agreement now…

 

[narrow_path]

Also, let’s not forget the preserved Pope list from the Vatican either:

Pope Honorius reigned from 625 to 638 A.D. He was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century.

In 769, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. Stephen gave orders for his papal rival to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died.

Pope Leo V only reigned for one month (July 903). Cardinal Christopher put Leo in prison and became Pope. Then Christopher was put in prison by Cardinal Sergius. Sergius killed Leo and Christopher while they were in prison. He also killed every cardinal who had opposed him.

Pope John XII reigned from 955 to 964. He was a violent man. He was so lustful that people of his day said that he turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. He drank toasts to the devil. When gambling he invoked pagan gods and goddesses. He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife.

In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia’s son; he was fathered by a Pope.

In 1003, Pope Silvester II was murdered by his successor, Pope John XVII. Seven months later, John was poisoned.

Pope Benedict VIII reigned from 1012 to 1024. He kept a private force of “pope’s men” who were known for torture, maimings, and murder. The Pope personally ordered many assassinations. He enjoyed cutting the tongues out of living men and he had a reputation for blood lust.

When Benedict VIII died, his brother seized power and became Pope John XIX. He had himself ordained a priest, consecrated as a bishop, and crowned as pope, all in the same day. John died under suspicious circumstances.

Pope Benedict IX reigned from 1032 to 1044, in 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. He became Pope through bribery. He had sex with men, women and animals. He gave orders for people to be murdered. He also practiced witchcraft and Satanism. The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that on two occasions he had to flee from Rome. Benedict sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI. As part of the deal, he continued to live in the Lateran Palace, with a generous income. Benedict filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes.

In 1298, Pope Boniface ordered that every man, woman, child and animal in the Italian town of Palestrina be slaughtered. He was known for torture, massacre, and ferocity.

Pope Clement VI reigned from 1342 to 1352. He ordered the slaughter of an entire Italian town. He lived a life of luxury and extravagance. He openly admitted that he sold church offices and he used threats and bribery to gain power. Clement purchased a French palace which became known as a papal brothel.

Pope Alexander VI reigned from 1492 to 1503. He was known for murder, bribery and selling positions of authority in the Church. He was grossly licentious. On one occasion he required 50 prostitutes to dance naked before him and to engage in sexual acts for his entertainment. He had cardinals killed so that he could confiscate their property and sell their positions to ambitious men. He died of poison after having dinner with a cardinal. It was rumored that the cardinal suspected that the Pope would try to poison him and he therefore switched wine goblets with the Pope.

continued…

 

[narrow_path]

Pope Julius II reigned from 1503 to 1513. He became Pope through bribery. He was extremely ruthless and violent. He had a reputation for lust, drunkenness, rages, deception, and nepotism.

Pope Leo X reigned from 1513 to 1521. He put a statue of himself in Rome’s Capitol to be saluted by the public. He had statues of Greek gods and goddesses put in Rome.

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He required kings and emperors to kiss his foot. Gregory and his successors used forged documents in order to expand the power of the papacy. Some Roman Catholics tried to expose these forgeries but they were excommunicated for it. However, the Orthodox Church kept records and wrote detailed information about the forgeries. Simony was rampant among clerics. It was commonplace for priests to pay money in order to become bishops and abbots. Pope Gregory VII said that he knew of more than 40 men who became Pope by means of bribery.

Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He said that the Pope is the ruler of the world and the father of princes and kings. He claimed that every priest and bishop must obey the Pope even if the Pope commands something evil. Pope Innocent wanted to get rid of the Albigensian heretics who lived in France. He forced the King of France to kill hundreds of thousands of French citizens. The Albigensians lived mingled among the French Catholics. Pope Innocent commanded that every person in the region, including the Catholics, be killed. This was called the Albigensian Crusade, or the Albigensian Massacre. The Pope gave the Albigensian Crusaders a special indulgence which was supposed to guarantee that if they died in battle then their sins would be remitted and they would go to Heaven.

Sometimes two or more men would claim to be Pope at the same time. All of these claimants to the papacy had followers. Eventually one contender would be declared to be Pope, and the other would be declared to be an antipope. For centuries, Roman Catholic books differed as to which men they considered to be the genuine popes. However, today there is much more agreement about which men were popes and which men were antipopes. According to the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” there were thirty antipopes.

Pope Gregory VII wanted to increase the power of the papacy. For reasons of politics and power, he abolished clerical marriage. In 1074 he passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests. As a result, since 1074 no Pope has been able to meet the Apostle Paul’s requirement for bishops.

As a result, for nearly a thousand years, not one Pope or cardinal or bishop has ever been able to meet Paul’s qualifications for being a bishop.

Also keep in mind that the Apostle Paul said, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” (1 Timothy 3:1, emphasis added) “One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3:4-5, emphasis added)

I sure wouldn’t want these men to be head of a household let alone “head of the church.”

 

[narrow_path]

OK miss Benedictus2-

I re-read all of your “rebuttals” to my earlier statements, and forgive me but I don’t even think there is any substance to your replies……they are just one-line opinions; not biblical rebuttals. It is as if I am speaking with an immature young girl who has an “I know you are but what am I?” kind of mentality. The absence of Scripture references have been replaced with mindless Catholic rhetoric and the effects of indoctrination are glaring. This is unimpressive to me. Refute me with SCRIPTURE and exegete the passages accordingly, THEN we can debate. If you will not, then my time is too valuable to spend (waste) in this manner.

 

[benedictus2]

OK miss Benedictus2-

I re-read all of your “rebuttals” to my earlier statements, and forgive me but I don’t even think there is any substance to your replies……they are just one-line opinions; not biblical rebuttals. It is as if I am speaking with an immature young girl who has an “I know you are but what am I?” kind of mentality. The absence of Scripture references have been replaced with mindless Catholic rhetoric and the effects of indoctrination are glaring. This is unimpressive to me. Refute me with SCRIPTURE and exegete the passages accordingly, THEN we can debate. If you will not, then my time is too valuable to spend (waste) in this manner.

You know very well that they are good rebuttals, That is why you won’t answer them because quite simply you really have no comeback. As I said before I can sense fear in you that is why you evade my posts.

If you are so convinced of your truth you would answer them but you are not. You know that you are standing on shaky ground. Just like the man who built his house on sand.

I countered your petra/petros and you have not replied to that. And heaps more.

Cat got your tongue?’

As a matter of fact it is you who cannot “exegete” which is by the way the wrong word because “exegete” is the term for the one who does the exegesis. There is no real verb for exegesis.

So are you brave enough to take the challenge?

 

[benedictus2]

OK miss Benedictus2-

I re-read all of your “rebuttals” to my earlier statements, and forgive me but I don’t even think there is any substance to your replies……they are just one-line opinions; not biblical rebuttals. It is as if I am speaking with an immature young girl who has an “I know you are but what am I?” kind of mentality. The absence of Scripture references have been replaced with mindless Catholic rhetoric and the effects of indoctrination are glaring. This is unimpressive to me. Refute me with SCRIPTURE and exegete the passages accordingly, THEN we can debate. If you will not, then my time is too valuable to spend (waste) in this manner.

Reply # 2

If you want exegesis here are my refutations which are BIBLICAL which you have not answered to;

My post No 101

narrow_path:

*Unbeknowst to me, (and upon further investigation), I was shocked to discover that not only is the establishment of the RCC through Peter merely debatable - there is an abundance of biblical data to demonstrate just otherwise *

Hi narrow path,

Care to share what biblical data there is that states that Christ did NOT establish the Church upon Peter?

narrow_path:

From the petra/petros debate in original Greek

You mean the petra/petros NON DEBATE?

Do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and that Matthew 16:18 went : “You are kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”, so a straight English translation really went "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church?"

Do you know that the only reason you have the petra/petros debate is because when they translated Aramaic into greek they had to give Simon the name Peter because the Greek language has gender for things and petra is a feminine name so they rendered Kepha into Peter because this is the male equivalent of Petra?

 

[benedictus2]

And here is some more Narrow_path,

This section from my post number 106

narrow_path:

However, if you believe meritorious works are involved in the equasion to get to heaven, then the burden of proof is with you.

And Biblical proof abound.
There’s James, there’s Matthew 25, there’s 1 John 2, there’s the beautitudes.

Actually, I have just checked my posts 101 to 106 and I addressed all Biblical objections you raised. So now you cannot hide behind the complaint that my posts were not Biblical becuase I did do an exegesis of the Biblical topics you brought up.

 

[usemelord]

There is one thing in particular with which I strongly disagree and that is the idea that we can never, ever lose our salvation; that it is “guaranteed” once we accept Christ as our Saviour. In my days as a practicing Protestant (and not a very good one at that) I held firmly to the notion of “once saved, always saved.” I think that I believed that was true because it was just something that had always been drilled into me. On reflection, though, it began to make no sense to me. What of the “born again” person who later rejects and renounces Christ altogether and/or chooses to be agnostic or atheist? What of the person that blasphemes the Holy Spirit which we know from Scripture is an absolute and certain bar from ever entering the heavenly Kingdom? These are only two examples of situations which, I believe, would be reason for one to lose one’s salvation and “guarantee” of eternal life with God. There are many more examples, but this is enough food for thought for the time being. Do you, narrow_path, still believe that under the above-described circumstances that you will still see those people in heaven when your time comes (not too soon, I hope)?

 

[paul_c]

Paul C-

I am not ignoring anyone on this thread, but I will need time to respond as I have another busy day ahead of me…perhaps tonight I will get an opportunity. Please be patient.

Also, what you say my views are on OSAS and Sola Fide, I do not recognize as my views. You have grossly misrepresented my positions on these issues. I have repeatedly said that genuinely saved individuals WILL do good works. It will not be optional. But rather, they will do these good works out of gratitude for the salvation they have undeservingly received. You seem to think that salvation EQUALS faith PLUS works. This is where we must be careful…God knows the motivations of His creatures for doing the works that they do. I remember my father (who was raised Catholic) would constantly use profanity, pornography, gamble and drink excessively. Yet, he would donate X amount of dollars toward charities and volunteer at the soup kitchen…thinking that a New Birth was not required for salvation. This is where the deception creeps in…works in themselves mean NOTHING in terms of HOW we get to heaven. However, as James so clearly stated, “Faith without works is dead.” I couldn’t agree more. This is because James understood that good works FLOW from a REGENERATE believer in Christ.

to be continued…

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Works without Faith ARE empty. You won’t get to heaven if you pray out loud so that others can hear, because their hearing will be your reward. That was clearly stated in Matthew 6 Same with fasting and almsgiving.

However, in the same way, Faith without works is empty as well. You seem to agree with that when you say that the Saved WILL do good works. So if that is true and you DON’T do good works, then we must assume that you are not saved. Don’t you see that once you understand that , then Faith alone can never save because Faith alone is nothing more than meaningless words. If you have Faith enought to move mountains but do not Have love, you are nothing. You’ve read the Bible 45 times. You must remember that line from 1 Corinthians 13. You need to have both Faith and the Good works that demonstrate that faith (and those Good works will be Love of Neighbor and of God).

And clearly you can understand that if the Saved do good works, then they must continue to do good works. No man can be assured that he individually has been saved until he dies and is judged. Who are we to judge anyone, even ourselves. Yes, God says that some will be elect and will be saved, but he doesn’t tell us that we will be one of them until out lives are over. You will not be able to demonstrate that you personally are guaranteed salvation from any Biblical text. I am sure of that. Feel free to try.

AS for your denials of the fact that God instituted one true church and that it was founded on Peter, well that is self-serving analysis from someone who wishes it was true. Here are the facts:

1. In Matthew 16, Peter is told that his insight that Jesus is Lord is from God and that he will be renamed the “Rock” on which Jesus will found his church. He is given the keys to the kingdom of God, whatever he binds will be bound, whatever he will loosed, will be loosed
2. His is further told that when the Disciples are dispersed, that Jesus prays that Peter will strengthen his brothers.
3. The risen Lord tells Peter in John 21 to Tend his sheep
4. In Acts 15, Peter states that he was chosen above all the Apostles to preach to the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem, a claim that is not disputed.
5. Paul further recognizes in Galatians 2 that Peter was charged with the Apostolate to the Jews. Clearly items 4 and 5 mean that Peter is rewponsible for the entire world

1. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the new testament. John is the next most mentioned apostle at 29 mentions. We follow Peter’s story in parallel to the Lord’s all through his mission and his passion. this is not by accident.
2. In Acts, we see Peter taking on the leadership role of the Church. He calls the Apostles together in Acts 1 and chooses a replacement for Judas. He speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost and answers the potentential converts of what to do, by ordering them to be baptized. He is the first to heal after Pentecost in and speaks for the Apostles to the crowds, the high preists and finally the Sanhedrin. He takes the leadership role in the incident of Ananias and Sapphira, who try to lie to God about their donations. He is the one called to convert Cornelius and the first to baptize a Gentile. He takes the leadership role at the Council of Jerusalem, defining that Gentile converts did not have to become Christians. James follows his lead on this, after previously holding the position that all Christians must first be Jews.
3. Peter’s leadership role is also discussed in the Epistles. In Galatians, it is Peter that Paul visits for 15 days prior to beginning his mission. and it is to him that Paul returns 14 years later to insure that "he has not been running in Vain. " As mentioned above Paul recognizes Peters authority over the Jews and seeks out his agreement to let Paul minister to the Gentiles. In Peter 2, Peter acknowledges Paul’s work as he would an underling and gives advice not to read false things into it.

Now, Narrow Path, In the face of all that, what is your argument that Christ didn’t found a Church with Peter as the leader.