John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[SHW]

Continued:

It’s all there, we lack nothing.

You lack comprehension skills.

When a righteous person sins, he loses his righteousness (dies spiritually/loses eternal life) and then he must repent and confess in order to become righteous again and then he has hope of eternal life once more.

Ezekiel 18:24-28 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

Hebrews 10:26-30 "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”

You preach a false gospel of eternal security and faith alone and Scripture alone. You take the Catholic Bible and then try to tell Catholics that your personal interpretations of the writings in their Bible are correct but theirs are not.

 

[SHW]

G4 actually has not done the “fine job” you say he has in 'refuting" anything in his last few posts. He has provided a fine series of rationalizations; at the expense of Bible doctrine; and Bible truth. His failure to admit that his own church commonly used the term “Roman Catholic” in a non-critical way is a real stretch at best for “truth.” The rest of his musings and criticisms follow suit. Your derogatory comments are no better.

I have been Catholic for a half century. It is true that I did not know that “Roman Catholic” was first used in a derogatory manner and neither did others since “communication” about such things which happened back in the 1600’s was not readily available as it is today. But, this does not refute the fact that it was first used by Protestants as an insult to the Pope in Rome and that the official name of our Church is “Catholic Church.”

Personally, I do not mind being called “Roman Catholic” because I know that “Catholic” means the “Universal” Church as written by Ignatius of Antioch in his writings. This does not mean that he himself made up the name. But it is the first written record, which has survived the ravages of time, which uses the term “Catholic Church” in regards to the Church of the Christians. This term was used to distinguish between the true Church of Jesus Christ and the heretical sects which broke away and formed their own so-called “churches.”

Ignatius of Antioch:
Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

from THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS
CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (110 AD) .

The fact that “Roman Catholic” also has come to designate Roman Rite Catholic rather than the official title: Catholic, Roman Rite; or even Byzantine Catholic or Byzantine Rite Catholic rather than Catholic, Byzantine Rite seems silly to argue about. We are all under the chief stewardship (keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven) of our Pope/Papa/Father in Rome.

By the way, Ignatius’ words are still true and relevant “today” since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!” [Hebrews 13:8]

 

[BRB1]

.The Galatian heresy was not one of directly rejecting Christ, or the necessity of faith, grace or salvation. The doctrinal error that caused some of them to be “severed from Christ,” to have “fallen from grace” and “Christ to be of no benefit” to them, was the egregious error of their adding to faith obedience of certain aspects of law. In short, the Galatian heresy was approaching God based upon faith plus works.

Lets consider your fatally-flawed theology above. You overlook / deny the ‘God inspired’, spiritual writings of James which teach that faith w/o gracious works is dead.

Secondly, you contradict yourself, when you discuss / interpret the ‘doctrinal error’ of the Galatians. Your statement above disproves / discredits your erroneous OSAS ideas that you frequently promote on CAF. What does “fallen from grace”, “Christ to be of no benefit”, “severed from Christ” mean if not that these Galatians were at risk / engaged in active Apostasy ?

Thirdly, you disparage Peter’s understandings & conduct, and reject his inerrant Theopneustic scriptures.

Conclusion: Your theology is built on shifting sand, not on the Rock or SS. Your understandings of scriptures are not apologetically sound.

 

[moondweller]

Lets consider your fatally-flawed theology above. You overlook / deny the ‘God inspired’, spiritual writings of James which teach that faith w/o gracious works is dead.

We’ve been through this a hundred times. James must be understood in its proper context. You lift it out.

Secondly, you contradict yourself, when you discuss / interpret the ‘doctrinal error’ of the Galatians. Your statement above disproves / discredits your erroneous OSAS ideas that you frequently promote on CAF. What does “fallen from grace”, “Christ to be of no benefit”, “severed from Christ” mean if not that these Galatians were at risk / engaged in active Apostasy ?

“Fallen from grace,” “severed from Christ,” and “Christ is of no benefit to you,” does not mean they lost their salvation (they never had it). It means, as a church, they lost the true gospel of Divine grace Paul originally delivered to them for salvation. Those churches abandoned the gospel (good news) of the gift of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone. They adopted a false gospel, one of “faith” (but not a true faith in Christ) PLUS works (true faith accepts only Christ’s work).

Apostasy (loss/abandonment of the true gospel) had set in. As leaven can only produce leavened bread, so apostasy can only produce apostates. No one can be saved through an apostate gospel.

Galatia was a region and Paul was addressing all the churches within that region. Some of those churches had accepted a “different” gospel, contrary to the one Paul had preached to them, a distortion of the original, and, said Paul, was in fact no gospel at all (see Gal. 1:1-6). That distorted “gospel” was one of “faith” PLUS works. Hence, they had “fallen from grace” (i.e., the grace that was originally preached to them by Paul and his companions); hence, they were “severed from Christ” because they were trying to be saved through works rather than through faith in Christ’s, once for all, sacrificial work on the cross - alone.

Now do you you see, BRB, how “Christ was of no benefit to them.” Their false gospel actually circumvented the cross and the present High Priestly work of the resurrected, glorified Christ (Heb. 7:25).

Conclusion: Your theology is built on shifting sand, not on the Rock or SS. Your understandings of scriptures are not apologetically sound.

To the contrary, I accept Pauline theology which exalts Christ alone, who alone redeemed me from my sins, reconciled me to God, justified me (as a gift), sanctified me in Himself, and promises to glorify me in the likeness of His glory - all in accordance with the eternal life I now possess.

 

[Protestant101]

I have been Catholic for a half century. It is true that I did not know that “Roman Catholic” was first used in a derogatory manner and neither did others since “communication” about such things which happened back in the 1600’s was not readily available as it is today. But, this does not refute the fact that it was first used by Protestants as an insult to the Pope in Rome and that the official name of our Church is “Catholic Church.”

Well; I don’t understand it the same; it does not appear that the Anglicans originally intended it to be an insult; this is just what some disgruntled Catholics are saying; I don’t think your Church officially teaches that either; although I could be wrong on that…But it certainly is nowhere near an insult, as used by thousands of both Catholics and Protestants since it’s inception; especially as they knew nothing about all of this. Your official Church name used to be Roman Catholic, as evidenced by it’s use by Catholics themselves. And this is something that some here are trying to distance from…changing truth is changing truth…

I have no trouble agreeing with what MacArthur says about Sola Scriptura; this topic has been a good eye-opener for me on several fronts…I am sure it will spawn other topics and discussions!

 

[SHW]

Galatia was a region and Paul was addressing all the churches within that region. Some of those churches had accepted a “different” gospel, contrary to the one Paul had preached to them, a distortion of the original, and, said Paul, was in fact no gospel at all (see Gal. 1:1-6). That distorted “gospel” was one of “faith” PLUS works. Hence, they had “fallen from grace” (i.e., the grace that was originally preached to them by Paul and his companions); hence, they were “severed from Christ” because they were trying to be saved through works rather than through faith in Christ’s, once for all, sacrificial work on the cross - alone.

This is Moondweller’s faulty interpretation. It is not truth.

One cannot fall from a tree unless first he has climbed up into a tree. After he has climbed the tree, then he can fall from it and thereby no longer be in it.

One cannot fall from grace unless he first has grace given to him and he has been established in this grace. When a person is given the free gift of grace, he is saved. After a person is saved, then he can sin and “fall” from this state of “grace.” When he falls from the state of grace (falls from grace), then he is no longer saved.

One cannot possibly sever himself from Christ unless he has first been **attached **to Christ. And if a person/branch is attached to Christ (Vine), then he has been saved/justified. If he sins after he has been saved, then he severs himself from Christ and he is no longer saved. [John 15]

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

This only takes a basic “comprehension” ability to grasp. I am sorry that you are incapable of grasping these teachings of Christ. This is the reason why persons should not attempt to interpret Scriptures without the guidance of the Church who authorized them. We have explained this to you many many times, but either you refuse to understand or else you are not able to understand.

2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.”

2 Peter 1:20 “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,”

2 Peter 3:15-16 “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you (Church hierarchy) hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,”

Galatians 1:9 “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

 

[SHW]

Well; I don’t understand it the same; it does not appear that the Anglicans originally intended it to be an insult; this is just what some disgruntled Catholics are saying; I don’t think your Church officially teaches that either; although I could be wrong on that…But it certainly is nowhere near an insult, as used by thousands of both Catholics and Protestants since it’s inception; especially as they knew nothing about all of this. Your official Church name used to be Roman Catholic, as evidenced by it’s use by Catholics themselves. And this is something that some here are trying to distance from…changing truth is changing truth…

I have no trouble agreeing with what MacArthur says about Sola Scriptura; this topic has been a good eye-opener for me on several fronts…I am sure it will spawn other topics and discussions!

Our Church has been known as the “Catholic Church” since at least 110 AD. This has not changed. What “we” individual members of this Catholic Church call “ourselves” makes no difference, nor does it matter what other individual members/Protestant denominations call us. God knows who we are!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Since Sola Scriptura has no basis in Scripture, I find MacArthur’s teaching extremely amusing.
But, I am also concerned about the many people to whom he has preached error.

1 Corinthians 11:2 " Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

James 3:1 “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.”

Who/what has the authority of Jesus? What is the support and foundation of the truth?

It is the Church. It is not Scripture!

1 Timothy 3:15 “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Scripture supplements the Church’s preaching of the gospel. It does not replace it nor does it supersede it. The Church was first and remains first. The Church authorized the Bible. The Bible did not authorize the Church. The Bible has no meaning or value without the Church’s approval and endorsement. Otherwise, it would just be another “book” like so many others, comprised entirely of fictitious stories.

Who has the final say in all matters pertaining to Jesus’ gospel?

The Church.

Matthew 18:17 “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But** if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector**.”

Sola Scriptura? Not Biblical.

 

[pete_29]

Yes, I know. It’s what makes you RC.

Um, I’m not a soda pop, I’m Catholic. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[BRB1]

We’ve been through this a hundred times. James must be understood in its proper context. You lift it out

Apostasy (loss/abandonment of the true gospel) had set in.

Now do you you see, BRB,

I accept Pauline theology which … … sanctified me in Himself, and promises to glorify me in the likeness of His glory - all in accordance with the eternal life I now possess.

MD … you are Would that you could stand back for a period, away from Earth’s singular circular crater-covered orb, and read what you post over @ Terra Firma.

Your theology is like a pretzel, so esoteric that John Mac [and Paul] would probably disagree with much of what you post here. IF, IF, IF you are so spirit-filled as you claim … why are you so inconsistent ? Look what you say above … “Apostasy (loss/abandonment of the gospel had set in” [within the Galatian Church].

What is the Church to you ? … if not composed of its Christian members ? Your own words here disprove the OSAS ideas you still claim you hold.

Do you really, still hold them ? Perhaps you have finally convinced yourself that Paul doesn’t teach OSAS afterall…

Indeed you even talk here of being SANCTIFIED … and HOPING to one day be Glorified … quite Catholic of you to say so

Are you finally ready to enter the True Church, break bread wiith the brethren who celebrate Paul with sainthood ? In a Church built over his & Peter’s bodies … in Rome no less !!! Yes we are the RCC … and proud of it Go to Rome and discover your roots. Enter the coliseum, where the blood of the martyrs once flowed rich. Tour the undergroud crypts, where our forebears were once lain to rest by the thousands. Walk the halls of the Vatican, where Christian history will come alive in 4D.

Join hands with God’s elect. Let the energy of the early Apostles, breathed into them via Christ, flow also into you and untwist your convoluted theologic ideas. You will never out apologize G-4, Pax, Mike, SHW, etc. Come out of the lunar cold, and join God’s Universal team

Its time you got re-justified, sanctified, and graced. Is God’s spirit divided ? Did God give us a spirit of confusion ? Not according to Paul. Unity in the brotherhood is the EXPECTATION of Paul … in his Epistles. To really set yourself apart … you first must bind yourself to the ONE. Learn obedience & to abide in Christ. These are the tenets of the Church, from time of Pentecost.

 

[M0nkey]

You don’t keep building a foundation; once laid, you build upon it.

My argument is you can’t “build upon it” without proper succession.

None of them are my “boss,” nor am I theirs.

So you heed to no authority. This in itself is unblibical.

The truth they took to the world was preserved for us in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scripture.

Bibliolatry! God is the fulfillment of scriptures; the truth He came to give was Himself, which is in the Eucharist. How are you not worshiping a book and not the person?

 

[pete_29]

Um, I’m not a soda pop, I’m Catholic. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

i was talking about RC (Royal Crown) cola in case anyone was confused. It was a long day, sorry.

 

[SHW]

i was talking about RC (Royal Crown) cola in case anyone was confused. It was a long day, sorry.

I thought it was funny! We called soda “pop” when I was growing up. Don’t know why it was originally named that. Maybe because the carbonated bubbles “popped?”

 

[SHW]

I posted a comment on John MacArthur’s website concerning this thread subject. It is posted “now,” but may be removed once it is “moderated.”

If you’d like to, you can check it out at symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1098

 

[guanophore]

The Biblical doctrine of “inspiration,” pertains only to the Scriptures.

I know it is most convenient for you to believe this, because this allows you to disregard other God Breathed Sources. However, it is no more true than some of the principles of SS, for example, that because the Scripture is inspired and inerrant, it is the only source of inspired and inerrant Truth available.

“Theopneustos” has to do with the work of the Holy Spirit; not with what Jesus and His Apostles spoke, but what the Holy Spirit wrote and preserved for us in that Holy Writ.

This is a definition that you would like to render for it, so that you can disregard what the Apostles spoke as God Breathed. However, it is not the case. what the Apostles spoke is just as much theopneustos as what they wrote.

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. " 1 Thess 2:13-14

" And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour,** for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." **Mark 13:11

Lying? You offer circular reasoning. He said to the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions they were taught whether by word or by letter from them. IOW, what traditions were taught by word were also taught in writing, which writing were theopneustos (God-breathed).

No, moon. Not all of the Sacred Traditions were committed to writing, and they are not all contained in the NT. This was never the purpose of the NT. It was not intended to be a complete compendium of the Apostolic faith. It was never to be separated from the Sacred Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

The Reformers felt it necessary to separate themselves from the Apostolic Traditions as a way of cutting themselves off from what they perceived was corruption in the clergy.

 But it's one's *belief in Him* that keeps one from coming into judgment and having passed out of death into life (Jn. 5:24), according to the Scriptures.    John 15:1-6 is about fruit bearing, not salvation.

Yes, I think you believe this because you are clinging to a deficient understanding of salvation. On the contrary, the Apsotles taught that justification, sanctification, and glofirication are all parts of the same salvation, and that it is not completed until the end of this life. Fruitbearing and obedience are most certainly part of our salvation. They are the part we work out while we are here on earth, because God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

The Galatian heresy was not one of directly rejecting Christ, or the necessity of faith, grace or salvation. The doctrinal error that caused some of them to be “severed from Christ,” to have “fallen from grace” and “Christ to be of no benefit” to them, was the egregious error of their adding to faith obedience of certain aspects of law.

No, moon. The misunderstanding was that living a life of faith must include obedience to the Mosaic law. This is what a life of faith was in the OT. Obedience to the Law was not “added”, rather, it was an expression of faith.

Just as obedience to the commandments of Christ, bearing fruit, and living out the beatitudes are for us expressions of our faith.

In short, the Galatian heresy was approaching God based upon faith plus works. Sound familiar (cf. Gal. 3:22, 24)?

No, actually. What is sounds like is that you have no understanding about how people were saved by faith under the Old Covenant. How does one become “righteous before God”? Do we not agree that it is by grace, through faith?

Luke 1:5-6
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Were they righteous because they “walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”? No, they were righteous before God because of their faith. They were obedient to God because of their faith, just as we are to be.

The Galatians were being misled into believing that their righteousness before God through faith had to include “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” contained in the Levitical Law.

 

[guanophore]

Then how are you unlike those Galatians you had “fallen from grace,” who were “severed from Christ,” and He was of “no benefit” to them?

Being under grace does not equate to lawlessness, moon. We are saved by grace, through faith FOR works of righteousness that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

When a person tries to walk in commandments without grace, through faith, then one has fallen from grace, and become severed from Christ. We can only keep His commandments by clinging to Him, having our life in HIm.

John 15:5-10
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

Keeping the commandments is an expression of love, not slavery to law.

  Read again what Paul wrote to the church at Rome:Rom 4:4-6 "*Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who **does not work***, but **believes in Him** who justifies the ungodly, **his faith** is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God **credits righteousness apart from works**:"

What I think you are suffering here moondweller, is a deficient understanding of salvation. This is what results in a misperception of the role of “works”. But I agree, I do not like the phrase “faith plus works”. To me it is misleading. The Apostle used a better one:

Gal 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

Saving faith is never separated form the loving works it produces. It is not really “faith plus works” as much as it is “faith working through love”.

 But he begins by saying that ALL Scripture is inspired: Gr. *theopneustos* (God-breathed).  Scripture is the Word of God. God left us with no higher authority.

I don’t know if “higher” is the right comparison, since Scripture is incapable of wielding authority. The exercise of authority can only be done by persons. It requires characteristics that Scripture does not have, such as discernment and will. Scripture cannot accept any responsibility for decisions and actions taken in the acts of authority, therefore, it cannot be the “higher authority”. In placing this role upon Scripture, the Reformers inadvertantly made themselves their own authority. They felt this was necessary because the they perceived that authority appointed by Christ was corrupted.

 The Son of Man himself appealed to it.2 Tim. 3:16-17

Scipture is valuable. It is not the only value. Jesus placed persons in authority because that is what He wanted. He did not intend for each man to do what was right in his own eyes.

 

[distracted]

Truth according to God’s Word. Since the Scriptures are theopneustos, they’re God’s Word.John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

2 Tim 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

i know i am butting in here (haven’t read all the posts… not even half)… but in any case…

it is one thing to know the Word… and we should all try to get to know the Word… to know the Word of God is to know Christ… who IS the word incarnate…

which brings me to my point…
**
Is it better to read a letter from a loved or - or be in the presence of the loved one?? **

I would rather be in His Presence than read the Bible…

The Bible is good for when one can’t be in Christ’s PResence, which is only in the Catholic Church… (because only an ordained Catholic priest can convect the Host)

 

[distracted]

I posted a comment on John MacArthur’s website concerning this thread subject. It is posted “now,” but may be removed once it is “moderated.”

If you’d like to, you can check it out at symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1098

what is your name @ that site? i went there but didn’t know how to find your comments…

 

[moondweller]

This is Moondweller’s faulty interpretation. It is not truth.

One cannot fall from a tree unless first he has climbed up into a tree. After he has climbed the tree, then he can fall from it and thereby no longer be in it.

One cannot fall from grace unless he first has grace given to him and he has been established in this grace. When a person is given the free gift of grace, he is saved. After a person is saved, then he can sin and “fall” from this state of “grace.” When he falls from the state of grace (falls from grace), then he is no longer saved.

Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches has nothing to do with sin and the loss of one’s salvation. Paul would never write such a letter since he taught that the true believer’s sins were, once for all, forgiven through the substitutionary, expiatory, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. That the believer’s debt was paid in full at the cross of Christ (Col. 2:13-14). The Apostolic message taken to the world was the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins for all who would believe in Jesus Christ:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you…”

Col 1:14 "…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."What you’re doing, SHW, is paying no attention to the content or overall context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and instead imposing your own doctrinal thought into it. That being the RC doctrine of “sanctifying grace,” i.e., the “infusion” of so-called “grace” into the soul at the time of baptism. Also called “justifying grace,” which Rome teaches is lost as soon as the RC commits a “mortal” sin (thereby rendering the cross of Christ impotent and meaningless). It’s what Rome calls the gospel of “initial justification,” which is completely foreign to Scripture; and most certainly foreign to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

In his Epistle Paul was specifically addressing the Galatian apostasy. That of having abandoned the gospel of Jesus Christ which he earlier preached to them on his first missionary journey; the gospel of justification through faith in Christ alone, apart from works:Gal 1:2-9 "To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom {be} the glory forevermore. Amen. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!That other “gospel” which was contrary to the one first preached to them was that of faith PLUS works. The introduction and acceptance of such a distorted “gospel” caused those who believed it to “fall from grace,” to be “severed from Christ,” and the consequence of that legalism was that Christ was of no benefit to them. The gospel Paul took to Galatia was that of salvation/justification through faith in Christ alone. There’s no salvation in any other “gospel.”

Paul wasn’t warning the Galatians about losing salvation through so-called “mortal” sins (that’s Rome’s “gospel”), but the abandonment of the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ itself (apostasy); the gospel of God’s infinite grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The loss of the true gospel which revealed that"…the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given (gifted) to those who believe." (Gal. 3:22).And what is this “promise?” 1 John 2:25 “This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.”

Rom 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

 

[moondweller]

MD … you are Would that you could stand back for a period, away from Earth’s singular circular crater-covered orb, and read what you post over @ Terra Firma.

You are a peculiar fellow, BRB!

 

[moondweller]

Um, I’m not a soda pop, I’m Catholic. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Do they still sell it?