Saved by faith alone? Man's doctrine vs. God's Doctrine

[SB81848889]

On the other hand Luther declared in writing that Mary is the Mother of God, that she was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin. These are issues which anti-Catholics disagree with but don’t realise the founders of Protestantism did believe this.
If you need his writings showing this let me know.
By the way Calvin and Zwingili also believed this.

Dont you see thistle when you trust any man in their teachings or believes and you dont prove it with scripture, you will find yourself at risk for error. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are not the Pope’s of protestantism. and they never claimed to be to my knowledge. all of the reformers were devout Catholics before the reformation, and most definitely held on to some of Rome’s doctrines. When Calvin wrote his institutes he had only separated from Rome just 2 years earlier. Do you know of anyone who can master the meaning of scripture in just 2 years, especially if you just renounced your last beliefs.

This is why we must hold onto only the Bible as the authority.

 

[John7]

I do however believe that the Papacy and the Roman church’s are anti-Christ.

That’s a stupid statement. Obviously you’ve never read 1 John (hint, its between James and 2 John). THE BIBLE !!! defines what/who is antichrist not you.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not **that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh **is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Let me ask you a question, when’s the last time you’ve read or heard Pope Bendict deny that Jesus is the Christ, or not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? You can’t because he hasn’t made such statements and neither have any of the Popes. Why don’t you now go pick up a Bible and read 1 John it might give you just a little insight, before you go shooting your mouth (keyboard) off.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Thank you for your responses.

erikd,

When speaking of the natural branches, the Apostle Paul was referring to the Jews who did not believe, and it is for certain they did not bear fruit. So Paul warns believers that if they do not bear fruit the same fate await them. It is easy to see why a branch that bears no fruit would be cut off, and it is reasonable to believe that a compassionate God would graft in one who later believes. But what makes no sense to me is why a fruit-bearing branch would ever be cut off. This is especially difficult to understand in light of the fact that the fruit the branch bears is the result of the tree it is in. The branch cannot bear fruit without the tree.

Either you are telling me that any Catholic who is cut off never bore fruit, or you are telling me that fruitful branches can be cut off and grafted back in. The former creates a quite a dilemma for your church and the later appears to contradict Scripture. After all, as you pointed out, it would be better for one who has known the truth and turned away to have never been born. What meaning does that have if such a one can go to his priest and be reinstated into God’s grace?

So please, can you clarify which of these statements is true: one who is cut off and returned never bore fruit, or one who is cut off and returned may have bore fruit?

God bless!

 

[SB81848889]

Christian works are works of obedience as well as our Lord told us in Matt; 19;17: “Keep the commandments” as a condition of the attainment of eternal life. This, of course, is perfectly reasonable when considering James 2:17: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” Keeping the commandments is keeping your faith.

Yes works are for obedience, but not salvation. When Jesus was speaking to the Jews in the Gospels this was before Christianity and before Christ died. He was trying to show the lost sheep of Israel that they were not living the commandments and could not live them even if they thought they were. Thats why he spent so much time talking to the religious leaders. They needed to first realize they were sinners and not keeping the law, and that would lead them to repentance and finally salvation once they believed on the son of God, himself. Jesus was continually teaching before his passion that they needed to do the will of the farther and believe on him. The 4 gospels have an entirely different message and audience then the rest of the New testament. The Gospels were about how Jesus had to die, the rest of the testament was about why he died, for who and what it meant to believers.

Your explanation of this is one you’ll have to explain, since the context seems exactly the same. Let me show you:

“And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:31

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well
James 2:8

The verse is even quoted as though referring back to Jesus’ words. Please explain how the two are different.

Or, perhaps the more likely explanation, is that James was merely explaining to us that if we profess Christ with our lips and not our heart (which of course translates into action or works) than that faith is pointless.

James is saying that salvation will produce good works, in fact without salvation you cannot do any good work for God.

Paul says salvation is a free gift of God and you cannot do any work no matter how small to contribution to your salvation, otherwise Christ died for nothing.

Its all the difference in the world, and its simple. I dont know how much clearer the bible can make it. You are still not getting my point that your reading into a particular verse what you need to be able to prove Rome’s doctrine, instead you should read out of the scripture what the author is trying to say.

It is interesting that you correctly identify Jesus’ commandments with the ten commandments, which of course are filled with good works, while denying the good works.

I never remember denying and good works. I am denying the need for good works for salvation. That is anti-Christ.

It is interesting to see that I gave you the opportunity to sway people by issuing a challenge to you which went unanswered. In post #11 I challenged you to back up your words of the Catholic Church teaching a works only salvation as well as the Catholic Church teaching that God does not want all of us to be saved. This is what you suggested in post #9. If you really want to change hearts and minds, answer these two questions with teachings from the magisterium and or the Catechism and you’ll create many many followers (myself included).

Ok, I do not believe the Roman church teaches a works only salvation. they teach something far more dangerous, a works/faith mixture for salvation. The scripture teaches a faith only salvation.

This is why it can be very deceiving when you listen to Rome’s way, because its intertwined with enough truth to keep you deceived.

 

[Mitchell1958]

Faith, as explained to me by some Protestant friends, seems to me to be a purely interior and spiritual act. “Works” are actions done exteriorly and involving the body. It appears to me that the Protestant interpretation assumes a strict dichotomy of spirit and body (matter) that is much too Gnostic for me. James’ epistle rejects that dichotomy, and this may be the reason Martin Luther (as I’ve read) attempted to remove it from the New Testament (much as he removed some books from the Old Testament). He realized correctly that James contradicted his interpretation of Paul.

 

[erikd]

Thank you for your responses.

erikd,

When speaking of the natural branches, the Apostle Paul was referring to the Jews who did not believe, and it is for certain they did not bear fruit. So Paul warns believers that if they do not bear fruit the same fate await them. It is easy to see why a branch that bears no fruit would be cut off, and it is reasonable to believe that a compassionate God would graft in one who later believes. But what makes no sense to me is why a fruit-bearing branch would ever be cut off. This is especially difficult to understand in light of the fact that the fruit the branch bears is the result of the tree it is in. The branch cannot bear fruit without the tree.

Either you are telling me that any Catholic who is cut off never bore fruit, or you are telling me that fruitful branches can be cut off and grafted back in. The former creates a quite a dilemma for your church and the later appears to contradict Scripture. After all, as you pointed out, it would be better for one who has known the truth and turned away to have never been born. What meaning does that have if such a one can go to his priest and be reinstated into God’s grace?

So please, can you clarify which of these statements is true: one who is cut off and returned never bore fruit, or one who is cut off and returned may have bore fruit?

God bless!

Hi Brian, you pose an interesting question and my answer is neither of the above is true. Based on the Scripture passages you’re referring to, John 15:1-17, we are the branches while Christ, Israel, and Wisdom are the vine. A vine branch can sometimes grow away from sources of light, sources of water, and other sources of life needed for the growth and nurturing process of the vine. We, as the vines, have that capability, to grow away from the sources of light and water, which the Vine-Dresser provides. But if we ask, we can be grafted in, since we agree that God’s will is for all persons to be united in Christ in the Kingdom of God. Therefore, we as the vines have the right to stray away from the sources of food, water, and light. We will not be led back to those sources if we choose to stay away from them. If, however, we decide that we’ve made a mistake, u-turns are allowed with God’s help through the sacraments of the Church.

I’m not sure if this answers the question or creates more questions, so feel free to let me know. It certainly is an interesting conversation.

 

[erikd]

Yes works are for obedience, but not salvation. When Jesus was speaking to the Jews in the Gospels this was before Christianity and before Christ died. He was trying to show the lost sheep of Israel that they were not living the commandments and could not live them even if they thought they were. Thats why he spent so much time talking to the religious leaders. They needed to first realize they were sinners and not keeping the law, and that would lead them to repentance and finally salvation once they believed on the son of God, himself. Jesus was continually teaching before his passion that they needed to do the will of the farther and believe on him. The 4 gospels have an entirely different message and audience then the rest of the New testament. The Gospels were about how Jesus had to die, the rest of the testament was about why he died, for who and what it meant to believers.

These are yes and no questions. Please try to keep your answers to yes or no, though I’m sure some explanation will find its way into your answer.

1: By saying that faith without works is dead, would you say that works are necessary for faith to be alive?

2: If your answer is yes, than would you say that faith without works is dead?

3: If your answer is yes, than would you say that faith without works is not salvific in and of itself?

4: Have you ever heard a pastor read from James 2:24 “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” then close his Bible and exclaim to his congregation “brothers and sisters we are saved by faith only!”? Just wondering.

My interpretation is that if faith needs works to be complete, and faith without works is dead, then faith which is dead is not salvific.

James is saying that salvation will produce good works, in fact without salvation you cannot do any good work for God.

You mean without faith you cannot do any good works for God?

Paul says salvation is a free gift of God and you cannot do any work no matter how small to contribution to your salvation, otherwise Christ died for nothing.

Its all the difference in the world, and its simple. I dont know how much clearer the bible can make it. You are still not getting my point that your reading into a particular verse what you need to be able to prove Rome’s doctrine, instead you should read out of the scripture what the author is trying to say.

I knew the accusations would come out sooner or later. This is not Rome’s doctrine, it is what Jesus taught, what the Apostles taught, and what Christians taught for 2000 years. Remember that if your interpretation is right and “Rome’s” interpretation is wrong, then Jesus must have been wrong as well. He did say, after all, that in order to gain eternal life one must follow the commandments (Mark 10:17-22, Matthew 19:16-22).

I never remember denying and good works. I am denying the need for good works for salvation. That is anti-Christ.

You’re denying the need for good works, when coupled with faith, as having salvific qualities. Remember, that by attaining good works, you’re probably staying away from bad works. And, unless you are able to go through life only thinking about stuff and not actually doing stuff, you’re committing some sort of works. Are they good or are they bad? Oh what a horrible doctrine this “Rome” is teaching us. Commanding us to do good in order to avoid evil, how could they!?

Ok, I do not believe the Roman church teaches a works only salvation. they teach something far more dangerous, a works/faith mixture for salvation. The scripture teaches a faith only salvation.

This is why it can be very deceiving when you listen to Rome’s way, because its intertwined with enough truth to keep you deceived.

Once again, we go back to the question up top. If you have no works, is your faith dead? According to St. James, it is. If your faith is dead, than how can it be salvific?

 

[adriancombe]

Me too…lol James 2:14-26 The arguement I get back is well…that guy that was crucified along w. Jesus was saved by his faith, so why is that not good enough for me? I said you didnt get crucified with him.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.*

Since Jesus’ definition of faith describes it as a work, the ‘faith without works’ concept is anti-biblical anyway.

 

[SB81848889]

This may be off subject, but the other day I was praying with my Brothers (that are Protestant). One thing that they continue to say is that they are seeking Gods face. . What they are trying to do is learn it from the Bible. Search deep into scripture and have the Holy Spirit teach them. But I finally spoke up and said the only way you can see His face is to do works (I didn’t use that term because they wouldn’t have listened any further). I presented to them Matthew 25: 31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Now to me, how could this not be works? You know what they never did respond. I can’t wait till this week so I can bring it up again.

God Bless
Kirk

You have quoted a very small part of the Olivet discourse, you need to read all of Matthew 24 and 25 and interpret them in context. There are at least 3 judgments that the world will go through at they will be held at different times. The Olivet discourse is speaking of the judgment of the gentile nations by Christ at the end of Jacobs trouble or the 70th week of Daniel right after his coming. If your a christian you will sit at the judgment seat of Christ.

You also need to consider all of the prophetic scriptures in revelation and Daniel before you can come to a correct interpretation of any of the discourses Jesus gave in Matthew.

There is a very easy way to see Gods face, and your friends dont need to do good works to see it.

John 14

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

 

[SB81848889]

Ok Napoleon.

The Pope is not the anti-Christ, and I cannot accept you saying that about MY Pope. God alone is the judge. I may not be well-versed, but I do know what love and obedience is in regards to life.

The Papal system is however. There is many anti-Christs. Whether or not a future Pope will be the abomination is a matter of only Gods knowledge I agree. But Rome as it stands right now fulfills many prophecies in revelation. I mean you no disrespect, but maybe your Pope has taken the place of Christ in your heart. Have you ever stood up for Jesus like you are for this man ?

Obedience is key. There would never be any Protestants if they practiced obedience. Yes, there have been mistakes, but after 2000 years of Catholicism (make sure you study complete Church history, not Chuck Smith’s version), the Church (Catholic) is still here, and like Scripture says, the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I do not know chuck smiths church history, I do know the real church history and its easy to see why so many people can be deceived by it. Apostasy has been going on since almost the beginning of the church as Paul points out in Galatians and Thessalonians. The early church fathers were very susceptible to false doctrine and most of them did not always agree with each other on many issues. The church fathers were just men like any one of us they did not have special revelation, and they taught many errors. They also had alot of good writing as well that did not contradict the scriptures. Everything that is happening today is foretold in prophecy and its very easy to see why Rome has been so successful. Until men turn to Christ and stop exalting themselves or their works or their power or their motives or their will then religion will continue to flourish. Unless Christ is glorified apostasy will continue to get worse. And thats exactly what God has said will happen. The real church history is a collection of writings that show this apostasy.

Like Napoleon said " history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

If you find enough people to stand together you will have a great tower of Babel.

We must imitate Christ…obedience and love. Jesus gave the keys to his Church to Peter. The Church just did not flounder and go underground until Martin Luther. Remember, throughout history, Christians were receiving the Eucharist and the other Sacraments. Only heretics weren’t.

Thank God we have 2000 years of teachings and Scripture. And a leader of our Church, rather than a lot of chiefs with different doctrines and flavors.

Martin Luther taught many heresy’s ( teachings contrary to the scriptures ), and thats why he is not where my hope exists.

The new testament church provided no means for individual church’s to rule over other church’s. That is another heresy that began when Rome gained civil power after the emperor Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople and left Rome to the bishop. many of the barbarian invasions of the city were called off because of the negotiations of the Bishop and he gained great fame and power. Rome seeks to gain civil power and political control, and has persecuted every bible believing congregation ever since. Millions have been murdered and countries have gone to war over the Pope’s direction. Are these the mistakes that you are referring to ?

Please don’t call my…OUR Pope the anti-Christ. Read Church history without bias, and your eyes will be opened. There are tons of Scripture references that go along the history and Councils, so you won’t be misdirected.

I have not met a Protestant yet, in personho has actually read Church history from Catholic and true sources. Their information is usually begotten from biased sources instead of the Truth.

Im am sure that the history version you are reading seems very satisfying to your heart, but maybe you should be wondering this? Man wrote History!, God wrote the Bible! Who do you really want to trust your salvation to ?

 

[SB81848889]

Three questions on this…

1. Where does history speak about the transitional point where “Rome took over”, AGAINST the will of the rest of the Church? Where does history speak about any rebellion or people speaking up against this “obvious” usurping of power that the Papacy supposedly did not have??? All the writings that we have from this period suggest that it was NATURAL that the faith must agree with the faith held at Rome (Paul suggests this in his letter to the Romans). In other words, what sort of Christians WERE these people to “allow” themselves to come under Roman hegemony? Remember, authority requires ACCEPTANCE, as well. One party claiming to have authoritative rights means nothing if no one ACCEPTS the claim (without superior weaponry).

The church is not an organization or business that had to be dealt with. The church is the body of Christ. There are many parts, but just one head. That head is Jesus Christ. Paul started speaking about the transitional period as you say. people were already starting to compete with each other about who had a better baptism and who had the church with a greater apostle.

1 Corinthians 1

11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Rome started pursing authority in Clements writings it is hinted at, of course with the eastern orthodox church, then the Waldensian’s , then the reformation, then the church of England, the new world. All of these examples are from history and show many believers resisting the unscriptural authority lorded by the Papacy.

1. Which prophesies clearly speak about the Roman Papacy? Recall that prophesies are purposely vague, and can be twisted or interpreted to mean practically anything. IF prophesies were applicable to ONLY one possibility, wouldn’t you think we find something for the JEWS to allow them to accept Jesus as the Christ??? In other words, anti-Romans can twist the Scriptures to support preconceived notions. There is no “Roman Papacy” prophesies that are universally accepted. The unbiased will not be convinced by them.

Revelation 17

1. Deception appears to follow the original, when one researches history. What does this say for Protestantism?

Regards

I do not hold to any teaching of any religion including protestantism. the bulk of protestantism is heretical and anti-Christ.

History means “His-Story”

The bible is the word of God, that is my history.

 

[SB81848889]

That’s a stupid statement. Obviously you’ve never read 1 John (hint, its between James and 2 John). THE BIBLE !!! defines what/who is antichrist not you.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not **that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh **is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Let me ask you a question, when’s the last time you’ve read or heard Pope Bendict deny that Jesus is the Christ, or not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? You can’t because he hasn’t made such statements and neither have any of the Popes. Why don’t you now go pick up a Bible and read 1 John it might give you just a little insight, before you go shooting your mouth (keyboard) off.

I never called your Pope the anti-Christ, I said the roman system was anti-Christ, or against Christ. There are many anti-Christs.

I do not know who the prophetic anti-Christ will be, but according to prophecy Rome will be involved.

 

[SB81848889]

Faith, as explained to me by some Protestant friends, seems to me to be a purely interior and spiritual act. “Works” are actions done exteriorly and involving the body. It appears to me that the Protestant interpretation assumes a strict dichotomy of spirit and body (matter) that is much too Gnostic for me. James’ epistle rejects that dichotomy, and this may be the reason Martin Luther (as I’ve read) attempted to remove it from the New Testament (much as he removed some books from the Old Testament). He realized correctly that James contradicted his interpretation of Paul.

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[William1964]

I listen to a lot of protestant christian radio. This topic is a mainstay. It’s always brought up. I think part of the reason is that protestants read their bibles and find verses like James 2:24 amoung others and it confuses them.

This subject, and OSAS is the meat of their doctrine. I don’t think they will admit that they indeed deny certain scriptures in fact certain scriptures are not talked about at all.

We must pray for them.

There’s even on fellow with a ministry called “People to People” by the name of Bob George who says you don’t even have to ask God for forgiveness.

Sinful presumption. God have mercy. Let us pray for them that God will open them up to the truth.

 

[SB81848889]

These are yes and no questions. Please try to keep your answers to yes or no, though I’m sure some explanation will find its way into your answer.

1: By saying that faith without works is dead, would you say that works are necessary for faith to be alive?

2: If your answer is yes, than would you say that faith without works is dead?

3: If your answer is yes, than would you say that faith without works is not salvific in and of itself?

4: Have you ever heard a pastor read from James 2:24 “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” then close his Bible and exclaim to his congregation “brothers and sisters we are saved by faith only!”? Just wondering.

My interpretation is that if faith needs works to be complete, and faith without works is dead, then faith which is dead is not salvific.

1. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

2. yes

3. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin

4. James is not discussing how we are justified before God. The rest of scripture contradicts your interpretation. If their faith was dead they were a confessing christian only and never believed Christ died for their sins.

You’re denying the need for good works, when coupled with faith, as having salvific qualities. Remember, that by attaining good works, you’re probably staying away from bad works. And, unless you are able to go through life only thinking about stuff and not actually doing stuff, you’re committing some sort of works. Are they good or are they bad? Oh what a horrible doctrine this “Rome” is teaching us. Commanding us to do good in order to avoid evil, how could they!?

For salvation we need no works, the scripture is clear on that. Rome is teaching you to forget about Christ’s works and look to your own works for salvation.

 

[Kirk_O]

You have quoted a very small part of the Olivet discourse, you need to read all of Matthew 24 and 25 and interpret them in context. There are at least 3 judgments that the world will go through at they will be held at different times. The Olivet discourse is speaking of the judgment of the gentile nations by Christ at the end of Jacobs trouble or the 70th week of Daniel right after his coming. If your a christian you will sit at the judgment seat of Christ.

You also need to consider all of the prophetic scriptures in revelation and Daniel before you can come to a correct interpretation of any of the discourses Jesus gave in Matthew.

There is a very easy way to see Gods face, and your friends dont need to do good works to see it.

John 14

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

I have to ask. If you believe the bible is sole authority than how can you pick and choose when to believe what it says. Jesus clearly says:

41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

You can’t go to Daniel, when Jesus is being quoted clearly. It must be nice to ignore Jesus’ words when it suits your goal. If you where not blinded with this self-righteousness, you could read it clearly. Yes, I did say, self-righteousness because that is what self interpretation of scripture is.

One thing you do need to know is that most good Christians do works and lots of works do they do. They just won’t call them works. If you look back at your life I am sure you perform works daily for God. Why can’t you admit that is what it is? Let’s say you stopped doing them and just sat in your house and job and never helped anyone with your gifts. Would you still be saved? Don’t you feel the Holy Spirit calling you to help others and spread the news of Jesus? If you then sit home and do nothing (no works) you would be going against the Holy Spirit.

I pray someday you will be able to see the truth, as I too was once blinded to it. It will be very calming to your soul.

With love and blessings,
Kirk

 

[ChadS]

The Papal system is however. There is many anti-Christs. Whether or not a future Pope will be the abomination is a matter of only Gods knowledge I agree. But Rome as it stands right now fulfills many prophecies in revelation. I mean you no disrespect, but maybe your Pope has taken the place of Christ in your heart. Have you ever stood up for Jesus like you are for this man ?

You mean no disrepect yet you still type very disrespectful words. Why don’t you stick to the issues at hand and keep your anti-Catholic polemics out of it. Unless your view of Christ, Scriptures and his Church requires you to subscribe to this sort of garbage? If that’s the case then why should we take what you have to say about faith/works or anything else related to Christian issues very seriously?

ChadS

 

[Porkchop2]

To SB,

You are pretty rude.

How mean to judge my character and question my relationship with Jesus, when you don’t even know me? You are so blinded with prejudice and your spiritual arrogance in your posts.

Chuck Smith was a former Catholic, of course. My husband and I used to live around the corner of the original Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California. I attended a Bible study there, and he just wouldn’t answer my questions in regards to Scripture. He is great on flamboyance, but little on substance.

My Bible doesn’t seem to please the Protestants. After all, my Church did not throw out the seven books of Scripture…you know which ones I am talking about.

I am a mother, doctor, wife, and life long Catholic. I had strayed away in my 20s looking to “be fed”-whatever that is-and stumbled upon Calvary. It wa a horrible experience, and their goal, well in the 80s and 90s were to undermine the Catholic Church. Then, one day I thought: hmmm, I have never, ever heard anything so demeaning, nasty, and vindictive about Calvary…why are they so mean about the Catholic church?

Then, studying Scripture (which I knew more of than I actually gave myself credit to) and Church History deeply, along with Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and Jeff Cavins, and the beautiful examples of our Saints, I returned full force.

I had always had a “personal” relationship with Christ. Hey, I even receive his Body and Blood on Sundays, not the symbol! How personal is that?

Oh, and instead of being negative, demeaning, and prejudiced, I realized that LOVE is what Jesus is looking for…not a bunch of words. Then I realized most of the poor houses, AIDS houses, etc were run by Catholics, and that included 2000 years of loving kindness for Christ. Our priests, nuns, missionaries, etc. give up their LIVES for Christ…how can one say we don’t have a personal relationship?

I may sound like a simpleton, but I am really a mother and doctor doing God’s work, and raising four Catholic Children to defend their faith until death. Yes, we have been made fun of by another Calvary Chapel for our faith, but that is not what Christ wants, I am sure.

Really, I have read anti-Catholic books by Protestants, I challenge you to read a book by a former Protestant that is now Catholic. Get balanced.

God bless you all that defend the True Faith with knowledge, love and passion. This is what saints are made of.

 

[fdesales]

The church is not an organization or business that had to be dealt with. The church is the body of Christ. There are many parts, but just one head. That head is Jesus Christ.

First, thanks for your comments…

Your statement is only a partial truth. First, the Church is ALSO an organization. It is difficult to NOT see that in the Acts of the Apostles. The Pastorals show the extent of this organization, and later works of the NT also point out that SOME people who claim to follow Christ are NOT part of the “Church”, or Apostolic Community, if you will, such as John’s epistles, Jude, and 2 Peter.

Yes, Jesus is the Head, but Peter is the Rock, the head SERVANT whom Christ left in charge, given the authority not only to bind and loosen, but feed the sheep (of Christ) and strengthen the faith of the others. Christ is the Head, Catholics do not deny this, but clearly, Christ speaks of a future time where OTHERS would be visible leaders of the community He organized.

What EXACTLY did Jesus have in mind when He told Peter to “feed my sheep”? Did Christ own some literal wooly sheep in a farm somewhere and was leaving them to Peter’s care???

Paul started speaking about the transitional period as you say. people were already starting to compete with each other about who had a better baptism and who had the church with a greater apostle.

1 Corinthians 1

Rome started pursing authority in Clements writings it is hinted at, of course with the eastern orthodox church, then the Waldensian’s , then the reformation, then the church of England, the new world. All of these examples are from history and show many believers resisting the unscriptural authority lorded by the Papacy.

I follow what you are saying UNTIL you state that “many believers resisting unscriptural authority”. Where is this “unscriptural authority”? The Scriptures clearly point out that the Apostles DID have authority, which later writings (that are NOW called the Bible, the NT) verify. Unless you believe that the Apostles faked the sayings of Jesus and wrote a false history so as to “prove” their authority to the other Christian communities. The Bible clearly points out that the Apostles had authority over other Christians for the sake of the rest of the Body. Eph. and 1 Cor state that Christ gave the Church apostles - for leadership and for perfecting the saints.

The “resistance” you point out is confused humans desiring to do things by the way of man rather than God. Your citations of 1 Corinthians prove my point. WHY is Paul upset with the Corinthians? Is he in agreement with the schismatics, that “we must rebel from Rome”??? Your own citations prove your undoing, since Paul is clearly attacking the Protestant mindset of following self-proclaimed leaders rather than men appointed by God through the authority given to the Apostles.

Paul is upset because they are NOT UNIFIED, promoting schism. Unity is found with the original apostles, as Paul clearly states over and over again. It is found in following the Gospel as preached by Paul and the rest of the Apostles. He tells the Galatians that EVEN IF AN ANGEL OF LIGHT should teach another Gospel - and thus, what hope can an ordinary Protestant have against an angel of light??? Such a figure is to be ignored, understanding that they teach a false gospel.

When the Apostles are ready to pass onto into the next life, they establish other elders and bishops in particular communities (such as Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete) to CONTINUE to teach what they had been taught, moved by the Spirit so as to protect the “deposit of the faith once given to the saints”. Paul complains against those who want to do it THEIR way, not Paul’s (and God’s, according to Paul) way.

Clement refers to the Corinthians in the same way as Paul refers to those who are setting up schism. The schismatics are not pleasing to God, either by Paul’s account, or Clement’s account. Where is your Scriptural warrant for rebeling against the house of God, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t Paul specifically state in 1 Cor 3 that such people who destroy this Temple will be destroyed by God??? He obviously is refering to schismatics…

Revelation 17

…Has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, whom John is a member…

I do not hold to any teaching of any religion including protestantism. the bulk of protestantism is heretical and anti-Christ.

History means “His-Story”

The bible is the word of God, that is my history.

History is not fully documented in the Bible, quite obviously, so the cliches have little real meaning.

And…: “i do not hold to any teaching of any religion”. wow. Clearly, you are either agnostic or atheist, because “religion” is the means by which man worships God. Being a man and having no religion, you must not worship God.

As to “the Bible is the Word of God, that is my history”, it is a tiring cliche that has very little TRUE meaning to people such as yourself, to be honest, because you pick and choose what to follow within the Book that contains the Word of God. How could someone NOT see that the first Christian community was organized and that Paul spoke AGAINST schism FROM this original community??? You even provide the citations that are problematic for your position!

Regards

 

[crazzeto]

1. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=2&l=10&f=s#x
Ephesians 2

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

1. yes

So how can a dead faith save you?

1. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin

Paul is talking about the Judisers, you know… The Jews who converted to Christianity and now were busy telling the Gentile converts that they had to be circomsised and follow all what, 600+ levitical laws? You see this in the acts of the apostles:

Acts 15:

1* And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved*. 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question. 3 They therefore being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. 5 But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. 12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:

The above issue is exactly what Paul is addressing in Romans, it’s important to keep that in mind when you read that book of the bible.

1. James is not discussing how we are justified before God. The rest of scripture contradicts your interpretation. If their faith was dead they were a confessing christian only and never believed Christ died for their sins.

No, he is in fact talking percisly about how we are justified by before God, that’s why he uses that word, justified:

21 Was not Abraham our father *justified *by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?

If he didn’t mean, justified, then why did he use the word, justified. Did James not know the difference between Justification and Sactification? Scripture can’t contradict it’s self when understood properly, the fact that you see contradiction should say something about saved by faith alone to you. Here’s one more passage where James uses that word, Justified

24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

For salvation we need no works, the scripture is clear on that. Rome is teaching you to forget about Christ’s works and look to your own works for salvation.