Sola Fides

[Servetus]

Hi All

It seems efforts have been made to silence me and shut me out of this forum. Seems a funny thing if my inadequate responses and lack of substance merely confirms people in their Catholic convictions. It certainly smacks of the 1500’s too !!

I have no desire to be offensive to any of your dear Catholic people and I would enjoy a sensible and thought through discussion but it does not seem as if you either read, listen or understand where I am coming from.

I am sincerely trying to hear you and understand your position, I think I do understand it pretty much, but unless the Holy Spirit illuminates you to the true doctrine of grace and salvation maybe it is pointless trying to discuss things and I should let the final day reveal the truth.

Still desiring to enjoy discussion if you do not shut me down.

Sincerely

 

[piety101]

Pastor Roberts

                   Your reformed denomination does not cite all the scriptures pertaining to forgiveness of sins and the necessity of obedience in faith for eternal life. Your denomination is no different then all the other myriads of other denominations who do the very same thing in regards to what THEY INTERPRET as being doctrinally correct thinking.

                    Of course we are justified faith, but not by faith ALONE. Because neither our Lord, nor the apostles ever preached such a thing. See Mk 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Col 1:21-23 and Heb 5:9 for example.

                    My goodness, if all one had to do to enter heaven was believe that Jesus died for oneself and was raised from the dead, plus nothing, then one would never have to enter the door of a church again for baptism, fellowship, the Lord's Supper or live out the rest of his days in a holy life. That is what salvation by faith ALONE means in it's faulty definition. Just BELIEVE and you got your ticket to heaven.

                      But Jesus, nor the apostles ever taught such a thing. Faith embraces ALL that our Lord commanded his apostles to preach and teach to all who became Christians. When Jesus said "ye MUST be born again, he MEANT it." He said ye must be born of WATER and the Spirit. Paul the apostle repeats the same thought in Titus 3:5. We have been saved by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This water, this washing is Christian baptism. The SAME thought is preached by Peter in Acts 2:38, where he says "Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins. The SAME thought is said by Ananias in Acts 22:16 where he instructs Paul to "Arise and WASH AWAY your sins." 

                         None of these apostles ever preached we are saved by faith ALONE, but by a faith that acts on the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also Paul himself says that we as Christians are now reconciled before God, IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH." See Colossains 1:21-23.

                         Even the faith of Abraham was not a faith that was alone. God told him to leave all he had, cattle, wealth, his homeland and go to a far country. Abraham OBEYED God and so his faith, that kind of faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. But what if Abraham would have said, "Oh I believe you are God, but I'm not leaving all that I have, I'm staying put." Would Abraham's faith resulted in him being justified?

It was BECAUSE Abraham obeyed God that he was justified. Look at Hebrews chapter 11. It says of all these saints “BY FAITH they did such and such.” THAT is the faith that saves and that is the faith that justifies. Not a faith that stands alone.

 

[Servetus]

dennisknapp:

Pastor Robert,

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

1. Early Christians were more like the “Bible” (or in your case Reformed) Christians of today, than the Roman Catholic Church.
2. We have historical records of these early Christians by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.
3. The historical records show what early Christians thought, believed, and practiced.
4. The historical records shows that the early Christians thought, believed, and practiced what is in line with Roman Catholic Teaching. (BTW, there is no evidence of sola fide, sola Scriptura, merely symbolic baptism and communion.)
5. Therefore, premise 1 is false.

Any thoughts?

Peace

Here is a classic example of misunderstanding.

We who are Reformed believers do not hold the above position. The early church was just that, the early church, the infant church, the church at the foundation. The truth it was supposed to believe and practice was actually the doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles. As the epistles clearly teach the early church was far from what Christ called it to be, there are few of the epistles that do no correct error.

As the church developed it went through many phases of growth, setbacks, periods of light and darkness until the present day when 21 Centuries later where the true church is identified by its faithfulness to apostolic doctrine alone.

Every church is tainted with error and sin but a true church is identifiable by testing its teaching against the Scriptures alone. Hence every writing of uninspired men must be brought to the bar of Holy Scripture and tested. Hence what do you find?

Early church fathers were in places right in others wrong. medieval writers were in places right and in others wrongs, reformers were in places right and in other places wrong and so we see the principle.

Every true believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit is free to interpret scripture for himself and will give an account to Christ on the final day.

The scriptures give the church the truth not the other way around. The scriptures and not the church are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice because the scriptures came first and the church arose out of the scriptures. The church must be humble enough to test all things by the word alone.

I hope that this helps you understand what a Reformed believer’s position actually is regarding the early church.

 

[piety101]

Pastor Roberts

                   Your reformed denomination does not cite all the scriptures pertaining to forgiveness of sins and the necessity of obedience in faith for eternal life. Your denomination is no different then all the other myriads of other denominations who do the very same thing in regards to what THEY INTERPRET as being doctrinally correct thinking.

                    Of course we are justified faith, but not by faith ALONE. Because neither our Lord, nor the apostles ever preached such a thing. See Mk 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Col 1:21-23 and Heb 5:9 for example.

                    My goodness, if all one had to do to enter heaven was believe that Jesus died for oneself and was raised from the dead, plus nothing, then one would never have to enter the door of a church again for baptism, fellowship, the Lord's Supper or live out the rest of his days in a holy life. That is what salvation by faith ALONE means in it's faulty definition. Just BELIEVE and you got your ticket to heaven.

                      But Jesus, nor the apostles ever taught such a thing. Faith embraces ALL that our Lord commanded his apostles to preach and teach to all who became Christians. When Jesus said "ye MUST be born again, he MEANT it." He said ye must be born of WATER and the Spirit. Paul the apostle repeats the same thought in Titus 3:5. We have been saved by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This water, this washing is Christian baptism. The SAME thought is preached by Peter in Acts 2:38, where he says "Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins. The SAME thought is said by Ananias in Acts 22:16 where he instructs Paul to "Arise and WASH AWAY your sins." 

                         None of these apostles ever preached we are saved by faith ALONE, but by a faith that acts on the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also Paul himself says that we as Christians are now reconciled before God, IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH." See Colossains 1:21-23.

                         Even the faith of Abraham was not a faith that was alone. God told him to leave all he had, cattle, wealth, his homeland and go to a far country. Abraham OBEYED God and so his faith, that kind of faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. But what if Abraham would have said, "Oh I believe you are God, but I'm not leaving all that I have, I'm staying put." Would Abraham's faith resulted in him being justified?

It was BECAUSE Abraham obeyed God that he was justified. Look at Hebrews chapter 11. It says of all these saints “BY FAITH they did such and such.” THAT is the faith that saves and that is the faith that justifies. Not a faith that stands alone.

 

[Servetus]

piety101:

Pastor Roberts

                   Your reformed denomination does not cite all the scriptures pertaining to forgiveness of sins and the necessity of obedience in faith for eternal life. Your denomination is no different then all the other myriads of other denominations who do the very same thing in regards to what THEY INTERPRET as being doctrinally correct thinking.


                    Of course we are justified faith, but not by faith ALONE. Because neither our Lord, nor the apostles ever preached such a thing. See Mk 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Col 1:21-23 and Heb 5:9 for example.

Here I need to stop you and ask you to study Romans 5v1 - clearly Paul did teach justification by faith alone. What about the thief on the cross who Jesus promised would be with Him that day in paradise? Not much time to add to his faith any good works

                    My goodness, if all one had to do to enter heaven was believe that Jesus died for oneself and was raised from the dead, plus nothing, then one would never have to enter the door of a church again for baptism, fellowship, the Lord's Supper or live out the rest of his days in a holy life. That is what salvation by faith ALONE means in it's faulty definition. Just BELIEVE and you got your ticket to heaven.

Again let me say you misunderstand. No well grounded Reformed believer would agree with your representation here. Those of us who are justified by faith alone delight to attend church, be baptised, fellowship receive the Lord’s Supper and pursue godliness. We do it because we are accepted by God through Christ not in order to hopefully still gain acceptance. We serve because He has loved us and we in response love Him. not in the hope He might still love us and receive us on the basis of our efforts.

                      But Jesus, nor the apostles ever taught such a thing. Faith embraces ALL that our Lord commanded his apostles to preach and teach to all who became Christians. When Jesus said "ye MUST be born again, he MEANT it." He said ye must be born of WATER and the Spirit. Paul the apostle repeats the same thought in Titus 3:5. We have been saved by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This water, this washing is Christian baptism. The SAME thought is preached by Peter in Acts 2:38, where he says "Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins. The SAME thought is said by Ananias in Acts 22:16 where he instructs Paul to "Arise and WASH AWAY your sins."

See above Romans 4 and 5 destroy your view.

                         None of these apostles ever preached we are saved by faith ALONE, but by a faith that acts on the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also Paul himself says that we as Christians are now reconciled before God, IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH." See Colossains 1:21-23.

                         Even the faith of Abraham was not a faith that was alone. God told him to leave all he had, cattle, wealth, his homeland and go to a far country. Abraham OBEYED God and so his faith, that kind of faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. But what if Abraham would have said, "Oh I believe you are God, but I'm not leaving all that I have, I'm staying put." Would Abraham's faith resulted in him being justified?

It was BECAUSE Abraham obeyed God that he was justified. Look at Hebrews chapter 11. It says of all these saints “BY FAITH they did such and such.” THAT is the faith that saves and that is the faith that justifies. Not a faith that stands alone.

Again study out Romans 4 and you will see you are not understanding Paul.

I hope that you will think about these things.

 

[Lillith]

Pastor Robert:

Well well where do I begin to respond to all this

RB

Pick a post…any one…let’s say Thessolonian’s…and respond. You aren’t really responding to anything Pastor…I seriously doubt you’re even reading.

 

[Fiat]

Servetus:

The scriptures give the church the truth not the other way around. The scriptures and not the church are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice because the scriptures came first and the church arose out of the scriptures. The church must be humble enough to test all things by the word alone.

I hope that this helps you understand what a Reformed believer’s position actually is regarding the early church.

Dear Servetus:
Your explanation helps me understand that the Reformed believer’s position is not in line with the Scriptures, at least in the manner in which you have expressed it here. Specifically, 1 Tim 3:15 tells me that THE CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth.

I’m a little confused as to how the new testament can precede the Church, particularly when Jesus builds His Church on Peter before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John began writing the gospel.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[RyanL]

Pastor,
I started a thread for you, but I don’t think you ever saw it…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59193

Blessings,
RyanL

 

[neophyte]

Pastor Robert,

You are quite mistaken if you think that the reason we disagree with you is that we don’t understand your position, quite the contrary. The reason is that we understand your position quite well, and find it to be not merely unbiblical but outright antibiblical.

Having been raised a Protestant, having attended private school with daily religious instruction, being a ravenous reader since I could tell an “A’” from a “B”, having spent many hours of study in the Scripture, having spent literally tens of thousands of hours listening to such worthies as Swindoll, Sproul, McGee, etc., etc. on evangelical radio, I’m quite familiar with your claims. And having professional training as an engineer, it’s my job to weigh evidence and mercilessly rip out my own hidden false assumptions.

What I was never familiar with was Catholicism, that is, not with true Catholic teaching. I was quite able to devestate the straw man distortion that had been presented to me by my instructors (yes, even including Luther and the rest), but when I was challenged to deal with what the Church really teaches, I was powerless for the simple reason that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the Truth.

In the same way that Josh McDowell studied Christianity to prove it a lie, I entered RCIA with the intent to prove Catholicism to be the sham that I thought it was. And just as McDowell ended up a Christian, I ended up a comitted Catholic. So I challenge you: spend the next 12 months in a systematic study, not of what you think Catholic teaching is, but of what it really is.

Then come back for a long talk, and please spare us the condescending remarks.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Pastor Robert a.k.a. Servetus;

You said…

It seems efforts have been made to silence me and shut me out of this forum. Seems a funny thing if my inadequate responses and lack of substance merely confirms people in their Catholic convictions. It certainly smacks of the 1500’s too !!

This is a forum for discussion and understanding, not a forum for evangelizing. It does not appear to me that you are making any real effort to understand Catholic doctrine. Instead, you are simply regurgitating conclsions about sola fide we’ve all seen before on these forums. You do not respond to specific questions that frame legitimate issue, but instead simply quote bible verses out of context and with little or no exegesis conclude that we’re “obviously” wrong and lck the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These comments make it clear that you are not really open to a discussion, despite your protests to the contrary.

My advice to you is that if we don’t understand your doctrine, then explain it to us in cogent and non-conclusive manner. Don’t just tell us to “read the Bible.” We’ve already done that. Your implication that we have not is simply patronizing and offensive.

Your little wise crack about the 1500s runs both ways. You seem like you’re willing to turn your back on the Truth regarding salvation that was taught for centuries, from the time of Christ, and from the Scriptures, because it does not conform to your desire that your personal salvation be assured from the moment you said your sinner’s prayer. Welcome, to the First Reformed Church of Pastor Robert. lol.

I have no desire to be offensive to any of your dear Catholic people and I would enjoy a sensible and thought through discussion but it does not seem as if you either read, listen or understand where I am coming from.

Of course you desire to be offensive. That’s evident from your last post to this forum. Besides, didn’t you say that you’re here to preach your truth, and if that is offensive then so be it? And I am trying to have a sensible discussion but you have offered nothing tangible in response to my questions but conclusions and bible verses that do not support sola fide. It is you who is not keeping up your end of the bargain.

I am sincerely trying to hear you and understand your position, I think I do understand it pretty much, but unless the Holy Spirit illuminates you to the true doctrine of grace and salvation maybe it is pointless trying to discuss things and I should let the final day reveal the truth.

If you are sincerely trying to understand Catholic doctrine, then let me tell you frankly that it does not show. Your statement about the Holy Spirit not illuminating true doctrine to us until the “final day” is certainly not evidence of listening or trying to understand our position. Instead, your patronizing comment smacks of your own frustration, which apparently arises from your inability to get us to change our doctrine so that it is in line with the doctrine of the First Reformed Church of Pastor Bob.

If we have not flocked to the banner of the Reformation on this thread it’s because you haven’t presented any compelling argument that convinces us we’re wrong for following the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Perhaps it is you who should ask God to send the Holy Spirit to illuminate you on the question of why you are failing in your attempt to evangele informed Catholics?

Still desiring to enjoy discussion if you do not shut me down.

Prove it. Start engaging in an enjoyable discussion and stop evangelizing.

 

[Subrosa]

Hey! I think I just found someone who can help us with Pastor Robert!

 

[Church_Militant]

Servetus:

Hi All

It seems efforts have been made to silence me and shut me out of this forum. Seems a funny thing if my inadequate responses and lack of substance merely confirms people in their Catholic convictions. It certainly smacks of the 1500’s too !!

Y’know, you never answered my question about what brought you here to begin with. But that crack about this being like the 1500’s is certainly lacking in charity. All I can imagine is that you have been seen to have an agenda of bashing Catholic belief, and that isn’t what we’re about here. We see a great deal of it anyway and we try to answer, but so far you have attempted to indict our salvation with rhetorical remarks simply because we disagree with the things that you preach. I find that a great many n-Cs who come in here seem to want us to all just lay down and let them spout their a-C rhetoric with vitriol and then allege some conspiracy to silence them or a lack of charity on our part when we answer with the passion of our faith. I’ll never figure that, but it doesn’t really matter. I’m always gonna be one of the guys offering answers…

I have no desire to be offensive to any of your dear Catholic people and I would enjoy a sensible and thought through discussion but it does not seem as if you either read, listen or understand where I am coming from.

You seem to think that we’ve never heard what you say before, and that is not the case. Most people find us frustrating in that we have our reasons and answers and when we disagree that must mean we are non-Christians. You showed this very line of reasoning in the post that I answered above and you seem to have ignored. I point out again that you seem to have a very superficial understanding of Catholic salvation.

I am sincerely trying to hear you and understand your position, I think I do understand it pretty much

, but unless the Holy Spirit illuminates you to the true doctrine of grace and salvation maybe it is pointless trying to discuss things and I should let the final day reveal the truth. a prime example of what I was just saying. :banghead:

Still desiring to enjoy discussion if you do not shut me down.

We’ll see…

 

[st_felicity]

You say this…

Servetus:

The early church was just that, the early church, the infant church, the church at the foundation. The truth it was supposed to believe and practice was actually the doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles. As the epistles clearly teach the early church was far from what Christ called it to be, there are few of the epistles that do no correct error.

and then, this…

the scriptures came first and the church arose out of the scriptures. .

So…the early church was not a church and the scriptures were letters to correct churches that didn’t exist before scripture because the church arose out of the scriptures?

HUH???

 

[Eden]

Here’s Jimmy Akin’s article on “Reformed” doctrine:

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

**Perseverance of the saints **

Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the saints. [33] All those who are at any time saints (in a state of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure. [34]

Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God’s children. They infer that, just as a child’s position in the family is secure, our position in God’s family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out.

This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have “eternal security” in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God’s children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually “born again.” [35]

Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach perseverance of the saints. The chief ones are John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them out of context [36], and there are numerous other exegetical problems with their interpretation. [37]

Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation? **The two are not the same. A person might be predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other. [38] One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed. **

If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were not predestined to final salvation). [39] Either way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. [40] **There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). [41] **

A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term “saints”–in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their “saintification”) completed. [42] If one defines “saint” in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: “the gift of final perseverance.”

The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, “Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect.” [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace.

**Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is “the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man…needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions…[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give.” [46] **

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as “Calvinists before Calvin.” While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin’s inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, **their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it. **

If one defines “saint” as one who will have his “saintification” completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a “perseverance of the saints” (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. **Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called “the predestined” or “the elect,” one might replace “perseverance of the saints” with “perseverance of the predestined” or, better, with “perseverance of the elect.” **

A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP:

**T = Total inability (to please God without special grace) **
**U = Unconditional election **

**L = Limited intent (for the atonement’s efficacy) **

**I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation) **

**P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life). **

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance. [48]

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Servetus:

Hi All

It seems efforts have been made to silence me and shut me out of this forum. Seems a funny thing if my inadequate responses and lack of substance merely confirms people in their Catholic convictions. It certainly smacks of the 1500’s too !The only inadequate response is coming from you pastor.Smacks of th 1500’s indeedhttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gifLearn some mannershttp://bestsmileys.com/nono/1.gif

I have no desire to be offensive to any of your dear Catholic people and I would enjoy a sensible and thought through discussion but it does not seem as if you either read, listen or understand where I am coming from. You have no desire to be offensive? Have you read your own posts?http://bestsmileys.com/nono/2.gif

I am sincerely trying to hear you and understand your position, I think I do understand it pretty much, but unless the Holy Spirit illuminates you to the true doctrine of grace and salvation maybe it is pointless trying to discuss things and I should let the final day reveal the truth.No sir you are not trying to hear and understand at all,you have taking a position in your mind of superiority and have come here NOT to learn and understand us but with an agenda to converthttp://bestsmileys.com/argue/1.gifThere you go again!http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/11.gifHow presumptuous of you to assume the Holy Spirit is not reaching us

Still desiring to enjoy discussion if you do not shut me down.

Sincerely

Finally if you get shut down it will be because of your own disobedience on the forum,trying to convert,and then coming in under a different name after suspension.You are supposed to deal with the moderators to get back on,but your pride and rebelliousness seeks another way:tsktsk:

 

[michaelgazin]

Here is another post to add to your pile Pastor Robert Servetus

Servetus:

Every church is tainted with error and sin but a true church is identifiable by testing its teaching against the Scriptures alone.

What Bible verse says this again? I don’t recall any, and certainly your phrase “Scriptures alone” is a fantasy not found in the Bible (at least that I can find)

So the true Church is one that adheres to Scripture, and is upheld by Scripture. You really have to explain to me 1 Tim. 3:15 then, because it certainly appears contrary to your teaching. A pillar upholds something. In this case, it upholds truth. Bulwark is defined as “a wall or embankment raised as a defensive fortification,” or in this context, it defends the truth as well. So the Church is described as upholding and defending the Truth. Far from being subserviated to Scripture, the Scriptures better adhere to the true Church, not the other way around :nope: .

But maybe you can explain away Paul’s clear and descriptive words. It would also help to provide the Bible verse that says the true Church must be tested by Scripture alone.

Peace,
Michael

 

[piety101]

Servetus

           You say I don't understand Paul and I should re read Romans 4? Servetus have you read Titus 3:5 and Colossians 1:21-23 of what Paul says? You see Paul just didn't preach and write isolated scriptures and make a doctrine out of them, but Paul orally taught and wrote MANY things as well. What he wrote and preached was passed on to the church throughout the generations. I already commented to you that Paul taught justification by faith, but not simply faith ALONE. But a faith that embraced all the commands of Jesus for forgiveness of sins and salvation.You totally ignore the new birth for salvation, repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. CONTINUING in the faith for the promise of eternal life and the AUTHORITY of the Catholic church altogether. I Tim 3:15

               And what of the written testimony of the very early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Iraeneus, Clement of Rome and Ignatius? What did they say about baptism, the Eucharist, continuing in the faith and the AUTHORITY of the Catholic church? Does their testimony count for anything in your understanding? 

                 Once again I ask you to examine ALL of scripture concerning salvation, forgiveness of sins and being born again. Not just what Paul wrote, but what our Lord and the apostles ALSO said and wrote. Examine WITHOUT PREJUDICE what the very early fathers themselves wrote. Then come back and talk sensibly.

 

[Sooner4Christ]

Fatih Alone is a person who throws away half the gospel and practices Antinomianism. By definition antinomianism is one who holds, that under the gospel dispensation of grace, the moral law, is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.

These people openly admit that they take only half of the gospel and throw away the other half by simply saying faith alone will obtain salvation. WHen you read the gospels fully, faith Alone is nowhere in the Bible. This is a doctrine of Martin Luther not of Jesus Christ.

If I as a Catholic am accussed of wanting to live the gospels through faith and good works! Then I am guilty of this accusation! I believe Christians must maintain the biblical balance between the two. It is mentioned everywhere in the bible that you cannot seperate the two. I don’t know if you recall C.S. Lewis or
not but he was asked a question if works or faith is more necessary. He replied with this answer, “that is like asking, which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.”

 

[Lillith]

I find it funny that Pastor Bob is taking this particular doctrine to a Catholic forum first. There are PLENTY of protestants who don’t believe in Sola Fides.