THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Ignatius]

Ozzie:

. . .There is no idea of meritorious works involved in these verses.

OK, what about these verses then" (thanks TNT):

“Faith without works is DEAD”
“Each will be judged according to his WORKS”
“If you love me keep my commandments”
“Unless a man is boirn AGAIN of WATER and the Holy Spirit he CANNOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven”
“WORK out your salvation in fear and trembling.”
“BAPTISM now saves you”
“He who believes AND is baptized, shall be saved”
“1Cor 9:
26 I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: 27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.”

Christ be with you.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie,

I thought of another “impossible” happening with me last night.

One of the last attempts I made to reject Catholicism and cling to my Bible only postition came through John MacArthur. If you are familiar with him you will agree he is very good at exegisis of language. He defended the position of sola scriptura on one verse in the Bible. (the only one that comes close, 2 Timothy 3:16)

I listened as over and over again he inserted the word “sufficient” into what the text said (even though the word is not used). “Profitable” says scripture, "sufficient (acutually “solely sufficient”) he said. Like Luther writing in his Bible, adding to the word of God, so he added to the clear language to bring it into line with his theology. He focused on the aim (making the man of God complete) and illogically transfered that aim to the method.

Yes, we Catholics believe in the Bible plus Tradition. But that is a far more historically and Biblically sound postiiton than the Bible plus your infallable interpretaion of it.

“Sola scriptura” is a myth. Those who claim to follow it always must add to scripture. First, they add “sola scriptura” which is not in the Bible. Then they add as they read their own interpretation. This is unavoidable.

The Bible without the Church is as senseless as the law without police, courts and judges. It just doesn’t work to let every one interpret and change objective truth on their own.

 

[davy39]

TNT:

I’d be mad too if my parents raised me as a “Babtist”. Sweet revenge on Satan. Who was completely hornswagled (deceived) by the Crucifixion. This is his reminder.
The 3 groups that disdain the crucifix are:

1. Muslims.
2. Satan.
3. Modern day sect protestants.

How can anyone object to a crucifix? To me, it is a reminder of what Jesus did to open the gates of heaven for us, and make it possible for us to go there.

 

[TNT]

davy39:

How can anyone object to a crucifix? To me, it is a reminder of what Jesus did to open the gates of heaven for us, and make it possible for us to go there.

Because, it has a traditional, historical conection to the Catholic. The more one is anti-catholic, the more one is anti-crucifix, and vice-versa. The same goes for the Catholic “sign of the Cross”.

God Bless, and alway “preach Christ, and Him Crucified”.

 

[TNT]

pnewton:

Ozzie,

I thought of another “impossible” happening with me last night.

One of the last attempts I made to reject Catholicism and cling to my Bible only postition came through John MacArthur. If you are familiar with him you will agree he is very good at exegisis of language. He defended the position of sola scriptura on one verse in the Bible. (the only one that comes close, 2 Timothy 3:16)

I listened as over and over again he inserted the word “sufficient” into what the text said (even though the word is not used). “Profitable” says scripture, "sufficient (acutually “solely sufficient”) he said. … and illogically transfered that aim to the method.

… your infallable interpretaion of it.

“Sola scriptura” is a myth (demonic actually) . Those who claim to follow it always must add to scripture. First, they add “sola scriptura” which is not in the Bible. Then they add as they read their own interpretation. This is unavoidable.

The Bible without the Church is as senseless as the law without police, courts and judges. It just doesn’t work to let every one interpret and change objective truth on their own.

Could not be better said. Thank you for the great post.

 

[Exporter]

The Bible without the Church is as senseless as the law without police, courts and judges. It just doesn’t work to let every one interpret and change objective truth on their own.

---

**pnewton, **Thanks for that analogy. It works! :tiphat:

 

[mtr01]

Ignatius:

Yes, they enter the Kingdom because they are sheep. But you miss the whole point; Jesus is saying “For I was hungry and you fed me”, “I was a stranger an you took me in”, etc. That is what MADE THEM SHEEP!

May the peace of Christ be with you.

These are very good points, but I just thought of an additional argument against Ozzie’s claim. It seems he puts a great deal of stock in John 3:16 as his proof:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,** that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life**.”

What I find interesting is that later in that same chapter (v. 36), John tells exactly what the opposite of “belief” is (it’s not disbelief):

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Thus, the opposite of believing is not obeying. Yes I am aware that some translations have “believe not” instead of “not obey”, but the Greek word in question is “apeitheo”, which literally means to be disobedient, or to not obey (it is the root of where we get “apathetic”).

This further supports my previous assertion that John uses “believe” as a synecdoche which includes all those things we must do in order to be obedient to our Lord (and which properly sheds light on why “believe not” is equivalent to “obey not”).

 

[Ozzie]

mtr01:

Thus, the opposite of believing is not obeying. Yes I am aware that some translations have “believe not” instead of “not obey”, but the Greek word in question is “apeitheo”, which literally means to be disobedient, or to not obey (it is the root of where we get “apathetic”).

This further supports my previous assertion that John uses “believe” as a synecdoche which includes all those things we must do in order to be obedient to our Lord (and which properly sheds light on why “believe not” is equivalent to “obey not”).

To “obey” is to first believe. Christ is actually making these two synonymous. You cannot “obey” unless you first believe. This is called “obedience of faith.” You claim to “obey” but refuse to “believe” (see Matt. 7:22-23).

 

[Church_Militant]

We obey…as per the commands of Christ Himself…BECAUSE we believe.

Scriptures follow:

John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.

Matthew 19:17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.

1 John 3:22 And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight.

1 John 5:2 In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1 John 5:3 For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.

Apocalypse 12 :17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Apocalypse 14 :12 Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 8 :51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

John 14 :23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Ozzie]

In response to my posts #s 254 &255:
Church Militant:

If that was true then WHY Matthew 25:31-46, which VERY CLEARLY says that we will be judged by what we have or have not “done to these the least of the brethren”? This passage obviously points to a FUTURE judgement based upon obedience to the comandments that Christ gave us.

First of all that scene is at the end of the age (see Matt. 24:3 for the context) and the events that take place just prior to Christ’s 2nd Advent to earth. Christ is speaking to His “sheep” who are living on the earth at that particular time. They were separated from the “goats” and inherit the Kingdom Christ is about to set up on earth and reign over from Jerusalem for 1000 years. They are not being judged to determine their salvation, they are already deemed as His *“sheep.”*QUOTE]So then tell me what this passage from the Word of God means then? (John 20:21-23) "21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."To whom did Christ speak these words? Do you find anywhere in Paul’s or Peter’s writings where they then spoke these same words to so-called “successors” of theirs? These men were being entrusted with the Gospel message concerning His death and resurrection. They were eyewitnesses of these marvelous events and the message He entrusted to them to take to the world was salvation by faith in Him alone. They were given the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone. If a man believed their message they had the authority to say your sins have been forgiven. If they refused, their sins were retained.

ACT 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

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

Sins are “retained” not because the Apostles refused to grant them forgiveness, but because the one who heard their message refused to believe it. Can you show me even place in Scripture where an Apostle personally said, “I forgive your sins?” One place where an Apostle personally said, “I retain your sins?”

It’s not so different today. God tells us in His written Word that through personal faith in Jesus Christ we (1) receive the forgiveness of ALL sins, (2) we’re reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:22), (3) justified by faith as a free gift (Rom. 3:23-24) and (4) inherit eternal life in Christ (Jn. 23:14-18; 5:24; Rom. 6:23). The unbeliever (secular or religious) refuses to believe His written Word and adamantly searches the Scriptures, like the Pharisees in Christ’s day, to try to prove God wrong.

If your interpretation is true then I can live any way I choose because my sins are all paid for and my lack of faithfulness and obedience to Christ is irrelevent to my salvation.

Actually it’s your lack of faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and your inward rebellion, that will tell you that you can live any way *“you like.” *The one truly born again in Christ Jesus desires to be pleasing to God, not for the sake of getting saved, but because he is, and his desire is to walk in a manner worthy of his calling. To please the One who saved him. His desire is not to commit the very sins for which Christ had to die. Nevertheless, it is not his new desire not to commit sins that saves him, but his personal trust in the One who DID.

2TIM 1:9 “who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,”

EPH 4:1-3 "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

Whom do you trust for your salvation, my friend? Christ or Rome? The Scriptures point to Christ alone, Rome points to its Episcopate and sacramental system. I entreat you to trust God’s Word over the word of men.

As for Christ’s “commandments” see John 6:28-29. If you have not yet begun with that “work of God” then you have not yet begun.

 

[Ozzie]

Ignatius:

The quotes you gave do not support your “Faith Alone” contention. Furthermore, your statement is a direct contradiction of Holy Scripture: Jame 2:24

See my post** # 226**. You must first understand the premise of James’ argument. RC apologists are notorious for lifting him out of context to support Rome’s works “gospel.”

 

[Ozzie]

mtr01:

No, it is not faith alone. Unfortunately, you misunderstand the nature of the word “believe” as used by John, not to mention the distinction between works of the law and Christian works of love (charity). First of all, what is the nature of “believe”? If you look at the entire Johanine opus we see that his take on faith and works is that true faith is work, and true work is faith. This is seen in light of Jn 1:12-13. The word “pisteuo” in both passages is a synecdoche (a part that represents the whole). In other words, it refer to an obedient faith that represents all that is necessary to follow Christ and be saved (taking up our cross everyday, repentence, baptism, etc.). In other words, a faith formed in love (fides formata charitate); the same type of faith Paul talks about (Rom 1:5; 16:26) . Mere intellectual assent of faith (fides informis) is not enough, and cannot save anyone (James 2:14).

Yes, according to God’s written Word salvation is by faith alone. Do good works follow salvation, of course!! Read Eph. 2:8-9 and finish with verse 10. A true believer is “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.” As for “obedience of faith:”

ROM 1:5 “through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name’s sake,”

ROM 16:26 “but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;”

Paul is using this phrase IN CONTEXT of his commission, i.e., Apostle to the Gentiles (see Gal. 2:7-9). And this was his message of FAITH obedience to the Gentiles:

GAL 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”

GAL 3:14 “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

To obey God is to BELIEVE the message concerning His Son.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Whom do you trust for your salvation, my friend? Christ or Rome? The Scriptures point to Christ alone, Rome points to its Episcopate and sacramental system.

We Catholics have better have our trust in Jesus. The sacramental system is the methodology.

Here is an analogy. Jesus healed a man born blind by putting clay on his eyes and having him wash in a specific pool. What healed him, Jesus or the act of washing? The answer is both of course. What if the man not done as Jesus had asked? Instead he had trusted in Jesus, yet was disobedient and just wiped it off. It was his belief as evidenced in his obedience to the actions Jesus established that healed his sight.

Can Jesus forgive my sins apart from Reconciliation? Absolutely!
But because I trust him, I trust that if he wanted the Church to have authority to bind and loose sins, I will follow Jesus by following His rules, not mine.

“Whatsoever sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained” John 20:23

 

[Church_Militant]

Ozzie…
You don’t even KNOW me…and you have pulled so much of this scripture totally outta context and injected somebody else’s interpretation on it. Your escatology is just someone’s opinion alone…you cannot tell me that you know when these events occur because the NT isn’t that clear on that. You may be satisfied with this interp…but I prefer to take it all in the total context of the NT.

I want you understand something here: I RESENT your judging me like this, and I am offended by it. I am also offended by your constant use of the terms “rome” as if that is a bad thing. You have displayed tremendous disrespect for our faith with these posts and I will not sit here and tolerate your misguided efforts to evangelize us.

Actually it’s your lack of faith

in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and your inward rebellion, that will tell you that you can live any way “you like.” The one truly born again in Christ Jesus desires to be pleasing to God, not for the sake of getting saved, but because he is, and his desire is to walk in a manner worthy of his calling. To please the One who saved him. His desire is not to commit the very sins for which Christ had to die. Nevertheless, it is not his new desire not to commit sins that saves him, but his personal trust in the One who DID.

This is just plain wrong Ozzie…What? did ya just get back from church and get a fresh dose of Anti-Catholicism to bring back to us here? This is just lame… HOW MANY TIMES do we have to explain stuff to you before you get it right? ALL this allegation is ASSUMING that we are not believers… how can you be so dense? Do you really think we are that STUPID? shaking his head

John 6:28-29 ? And? What exactly do you think the Catholic Church bases our salvation on ya rocket scientist? You are one each HARD headed A/C dude and I really am tired of your IGNORANT allegations about my church. Yeah, I called ya IGNORANT and I just did it again… That’s NOT ad hominen, but a statement of fact that EVERY Catholic on this site will readily attest to. You have a problem with Catholics and our church…TOO BAD, we KNOW what we believe and WHY and all your out of context, free flying interpretations are sure as vitam aeternam NOT gonna draw us away from the truth.
**
This remark is highly Anti-Catholic and offensive:**

Whom do you trust for your salvation, my friend? Christ or Rome? The Scriptures point to Christ alone, Rome points to its Episcopate and sacramental system. I entreat you to trust God’s Word over the word of men

.

If you are too blind and narrow minded to see that what you have alleged is not so then you do not belong here among us. You have no idea what you are talking about but you have used this forum as a platform for ongoing attacks on the Church that we love and have found personal relationships with Christ in…whether YOU believe it or not. We Catholics would never do to non-Catholics what you have done to us…we consider it a lack of charity and respect.

I cannot understand how you can come in here in good conscience and behave this way. If you were here in my home right now I’d have to ask you to leave and not return.

One last thing: I don’t know who’s feedin’ you all this anti-Catholic trash, but you really should question your own motives and theirs as well because none of you are basing your opposition to the Catholic faith on factual Catholicism. In short…you’ve been gravely misled, lied to, and the beliefs of the Catholic Church have been TOTALLY misinterpreted and misrepresented by whoever is your preacher, pastor, or hero (whatever). For a “Christian” to settle for something less than 100% truth is heresy and shame…and that, Ozzie, is EXACTLY what your problem is.

Pax vobiscum, and goodbye.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

…the opposite of believing is not obeying. Yes I am aware that some translations have “believe not” instead of “not obey”, but the Greek word in question is "apeitheo"

, which literally means to be disobedient, or to not obey…

This further supports my previous assertion that John uses “believe” as a synecdoche which includes all those things we must do in order to be obedient to our Lord (and which properly sheds light on why “believe not” is equivalent to “obey not”).

Ozzie:

To “obey” is to first believe. Christ is actually making these two synonymous. You cannot “obey” unless you first believe. This is called “obedience of faith.” You claim to “obey” but refuse to “believe” (see Matt.

7:22-23).

Ozzie: You have not responded to what mtr01 has said. You have merely stated an opinion (yours). This opinion is that to obey is first to believe. This opinion is bald. It is not supported.

Then you attempt a conclusion which has no connection or relevance to your previous bald and unsupported opinions. mtr01, you ‘conclude,’ claims to obey but refuses to believe.

Then you cite Mt 7:22-23.

Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Mt 7:22-23 DRC

What connection does Mt 7:22-23 have with your opinions? If anything, Mt 7:22-23, when taken in the context of the whole chapter, operates to support mtr01’s claims and not yours. At the end of the chapter this is what Jesus says:

Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,

And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,

And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. (Mt 7:24-27

Peter is the rock. So, the house that fell is not Catholicism. I wonder, then, what house it is that fell? Um, could it be the house that divides itself continually until its parts are so disparate they can only be thought of as a house by means of the wildest flights of the imagination?

Continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ozzie, you paid no attention to what mtr01 said, did you?

---

Apeitheo means to be disobedient.

In spite of mtr01 being kind enough to provide the Greek roots of the words you are discussing, you completely evaded his post, to provide your own unsupported, personal, individual interpretation. This behaviour equates to writing your own Bible.

Ozzie:

God tells us in His written Word that through personal faith in Jesus Christ we (1

) receive the forgiveness of ALL sins, (2) we’re reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:22), (3) justified by faith as a free gift (Rom. 3:23-24) and (4) inherit eternal life in Christ (Jn. 23:14-18; 5:24; Rom. 6:23).

Church Militant has given you a long list of passages which directly contradict your own personal, individual interpretation of the short list of passages which you have taken out of context. Rather than address those passages which Church Militant has offered, you evade Church Militant and offer new material. This is not the way to participate in a discussion. This sounds like your way or the highway. It sounds like a lecture.

Also is the Word of God not Jesus himself? Why are embellishing the term Word of God with your interpolation ‘written’?

Ozzie:

The unbeliever (secular or religious) refuses to believe His written Word and adamantly searches the Scriptures, like the Pharisees in Christ’s day, to try to prove God wrong.

What are you talking about? If, as you seem to suggest, God’s written word is the same as the Scriptures and if, as you seem to suggest, unbelievers refuse to believe God’s written word, then why would they search Scriptures to prove God wrong? That does not make sense.

Or are you saying that God’s written word is one category and Scriptures are another category? That, then would argue against Sola Scriptura. In this scenario, people do not believe non-Scriptural Church documents to be true. So they search the Scriptures, like Pharisees, to prove God wrong. Um… the real unbelievers seem to have shot themselves in the foot!

Ozzie:

Whom do you trust for your salvation, my friend? Christ or

Rome?

This is a false dilemma. What it implies is a disgraceful avoidance of what the Church actually teaches. It demonstrates – in plain view – your lack of good faith in conducting your part of this discussion.

Ozzie:
Rome points to its Episcopate and sacramental system.

Your opinion. Unsupported. And false.

Ozzie:

I entreat you to trust God’s Word over the word of men.

How astutely you grasp Church Militant’s point when you are aiming it towards Church Mililtant and not to yourself. Mote? Log?

Continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:
No, it is not faith alone. Unfortunately, you misunderstand the nature of the word “believe” as used by John, not to mention the distinction between works of the law and Christian works of love (charity).

First of all, what is the nature of “believe”? If you look at the entire Johanine opus we see that his take on faith and works is that true faith is work, and true work is faith. This is seen in light of Jn 1:12-13. The word “pisteuo” in both passages is a synecdoche (a part that represents the whole).

In other words, it refer to an obedient faith that represents all that is necessary to follow Christ and be saved (taking up our cross everyday, repentence, baptism, etc.). In other words, a faith formed in love (fides formata charitate); the same type of faith Paul talks about (Rom 1:5; 16:26) .

Mere intellectual assent of faith (fides informis) is not enough, and cannot save anyone (James 2:14).

pnewton:

Here is an analogy. Jesus healed a man born blind by putting clay on his eyes and having him wash in a specific pool. What healed him, Jesus or the act of washing? The answer is both of course. What if the man had not done as Jesus had asked? Instead he had trusted in Jesus, yet was disobedient and just wiped it off. It was his belief as evidenced in his obedience to the actions Jesus established that healed his sight.

There you go, Ozzie. The act of healing is always accompanied by an act of faith. Not faith only. But faith translated to action.

ChurchMilitant:

You have a problem with Catholics and our church.

No, Church Militant. Ozzie has a problem with the nonsense he has bought into about our Church. If he would honestly step forward to learn the facts about our Church…well…you know how the saying goes:

to know us
**is to **
love us!

 

[Ozzie]

pnewton:

Here is an analogy. Jesus healed a man born blind by putting clay on his eyes and having him wash in a specific pool. What healed him, Jesus or the act of washing? The answer is both of course. What if the man not done as Jesus had asked? Instead he had trusted in Jesus, yet was disobedient and just wiped it off. It was his belief as evidenced in his obedience to the actions Jesus established that healed his sight.

Your analogy is non-sequitur to the discussion. Jesus was not saving the man but healing the man. According to Scripture (God’s Word) Christ Himself did ALL the work needed (on the cross) to procure our salvation. According to God’s Word (not Rome’s) the only requirement of man is to believe the message concerning Christ’s sacrificial work on their behalf: "For by GRACE you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it (salvation) is a gift of God; not as a result of works…" WHY? Because Christ Himself (on the cross) did ALL the work required. No one - NOBODY - no man born of Adam (and certainly not YOU), was qualified to be the unblemished Lamb who could take away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29).

Can Jesus forgive my sins apart from Reconciliation? Absolutely!

You mean the “sacrament of Reconciliation?” That sacrament is Roman, rooted in unbelief, not Biblical. The Biblical truth is that God *has *FORGIVEN (past tense) the true believer of all ALL sins, based on the cross of Christ; and there on the cross He also accomplished the work of reconciliation on your behalf:

2COR. 5:19-20 “…namely, that God was* in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,* not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

I will follow Jesus by following His rules, not mine.

Actually, you’re following Rome’s rules. Rather than following any man’s* rules*, you’d be eternally better off by *believing *God’s immutable, written Word concerning salvation and His Son.

When a man (secular or religious) turns from unbelief to belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, he is at that moment of belief forgiven of ALL sins and forever reconciled to God. That’s the power of God, through the cross of Christ, toward all who believe:

ROM. 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

I pray that one day you might come to understand (by faith) what the cross of Christ means, what Christ actually accomplished there for you 2000 years ago; and because of the cross the power God has to save you forever. But this cannot happen until you come to the cross empty handed.

What do you think Paul means when he wrote:

ROM. 4:25-5:1 “He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ,”

 

[Church_Militant]

Ani Ibi:

There you go, Ozzie. The act of healing is always accompanied by an act of faith. Not faith only. But faith translated to action.

No, Church Militant. Ozzie has a problem with the nonsense he has bought into about our Church. If he would honestly step forward to learn the facts about our Church…well…you know how the saying goes:

to know us
**is to **
love us!

You could be right…I still pray for him…and all like him.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Your analogy is non-sequitur to the discussion. …That sacrament is Roman, rooted in unbelief, not Biblical.

Calling things you can not answer non-sequiter does not answer anything. The history of salvation from the time of Cain until the prayers offered in Revelations show that God condescends to give us physical, sense-perciptable ways to convey spiritual grace. The case of Timothy receiving his spiritual gifts by the laying on of hands also comes to mind. The idea of a physical sacramental system is far more Biblical than the modern idea of a one-time conversion, say this prayer and BAM you made it to heaven.

You say that my belief is un-Biblical despite the fact it is supported by scripture. If all sin is forgiven past present and future, then why did Jesus tell the apostles have the right to forgive and retain sins? You know doubt have an answer, but in order to answer this you will insert a great deal into the text that is not there.