What does this verse mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRIT72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChristusVincit said:
Lol, these discussions make laugh/cry.

Brit, if the Catholic Church is all a lie, then her teachings pose no threat to you. But since she claims to have the fullness of the truth and a much more intimate personal relationship with Jesus than you and your church do - why don’t you properly investigate with an open mind? You might say that you have no need to because you are already saved. But think for one moment; what if you’re not? In fact, you are not saved - at least not in the sense you mean. Because that is a fictional concept made up by Luther and supported by others since because they are rightly very frightened of the idea of losing their salvation.

I dare you to investigate Catholicism. Put all of your preconceived notions aside, and have a look. It makes a lot of sense. Here are a run down of some facts that might whet your appetite:
  • It was the authority of the Church that determined what books were in Sacred Scripture
  • We and the Orthodox are the only bodies that take John 6 as Jesus wanted. Look at the proto-protestants in that chapter, who left him over the doctrine of the Eucharist. Look at Judas, who is called a devil because he didn’t believe, which is what led him to betray him.
  • We and the Orthodox are the only bodies to continue Jesus’s commands - in terms of the successors of the apostles exercising their god-given powers to forgive sins, and to “do” the last supper in memory of him. not re-enact - actually do.
  • All of the writers of the new testament were Catholic. St Paul was a Catholic. He went to mass. St Luke was a Catholic. He went to mass. He writes about mass in Acts.
  • We acknowledge the incidence of the Eunuch in acts to be true, and st peter’s comments about personal interpretations of scripture being twisted.
I hope those give you a few examples of the Catholic Church being the most faithful to Jesus’s commands - including being ONE - rather than numerous. Join us, come home.
Click to expand...
The catholic church isn’t a threat to me, but I am trying to show that it is not infallible and has a lot of error.
 
Yikes. Quite a free-for-all this thread has turned into. 😦

Brit27, you asked about the meaning of this verse:
BRIT72 said:
**For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.
**
Click to expand...
We are saved by faith apart from works, that much is clear.

What I am not prepared to say is that we are saved by faith alone.
 
Peter_J said:
Yikes. Quite a free-for-all this thread has turned into. 😦

Brit27, you asked about the meaning of this verse:

We are saved by faith apart from works, that much is clear.

What I am not prepared to say is that we are saved by faith alone.
Click to expand...
That’s a shame, because if you were, you would be saved.
 
BRIT72 said:
The catholic church isn’t a threat to me, but I am trying to show that it is not infallible and has a lot of error.
Click to expand...
You’re doing a rubbish job because you don’t understand what she teaches. You might have even read our Church;s writings but what you’re saying about them proves you don’t understand them. If you refuse to find out, I would say you’re threatened.

And by the way, unless you prove otherwise, you’re the one that’s wrong. We’ve given ample evidence to prove our position, you’ve given none!
 
ChristusVincit said:
You’re doing a rubbish job because you don’t understand what she teaches. You might have even read our Church;s writings but what you’re saying about them proves you don’t understand them. If you refuse to find out, I would say you’re threatened.

And by the way, unless you prove otherwise, you’re the one that’s wrong. We’ve given ample evidence to prove our position, you’ve given none!
Click to expand...
Not threatened, just greived.
The only proof is in the Scriptures, but you refuse to believe them.
 
BRIT72 said:
Not threatened, just greived.
The only proof is in the Scriptures, but you refuse to believe them.
Click to expand...
Who says the only proof is in the Scriptures?

Certainly not St Paul, who said that we should hold to the traditions he passed on.
 
ruslan said:
Is this what you are saying the verse means?
Click to expand...
**And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58 **
 
BRIT72 said:
All the letters of Paul, are in our Bibles and are Scripture.
Click to expand...
Oh I see.

First off - how well do you know your Scripture? Paul references letters which we don’t have. So not all of his letters are.

Secondly - Paul’s primary role was a preacher. Why don’t we have a copy of his basic catechesis? Or like his written speeches to various parties when he first went there?

Because they didn’t exist! He didn’t write everything he taught down. So the traditions he taught are not found in the Scripture.

They’re found in the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church - which have remained the same since Christ’s days in Galilee.
 
ChristusVincit said:
Oh I see.

First off - how well do you know your Scripture? Paul references letters which we don’t have. So not all of his letters are.

Secondly - Paul’s primary role was a preacher. Why don’t we have a copy of his basic catechesis? Or like his written speeches to various parties when he first went there?

Because they didn’t exist! He didn’t write everything he taught down. So the traditions he taught are not found in the Scripture.

They’re found in the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church - which have remained the same since Christ’s days in Galilee.
Click to expand...
We have the letters that God want’s in his Word.
Paul preached the Word of God, we have that, we don’t need it written down everytime someone preaches from the word.
I’m sure they are written down in Scripture. His traditions would not go against the Word of God.
 
BRIT72 said:
We have the letters that God want’s in his Word.
Paul preached the Word of God, we have that, we don’t need it written down everytime someone preaches from the word.
I’m sure they are written down in Scripture. His traditions would not go against the Word of God.
Click to expand...
A) How do you know they’re what God wants? If the Catholic Church has no authority, you have no assurance that she assembled Scripture correctly. And if you accept that she had authority in the period of assembling scripture (about 300 years after Christ) then you must account for why you think she didn’t and doesn’t the rest of the time. Without the Catholic Church and her teaching authority, the Scriptures could well be nothing more than the ramblings of some maniacs. Why do you believe the Bible is what it says it is? If I said I was a dog, would you believe me because I said I was?

B) What we call the Scriptures did not exist when Paul was preaching. Only the Hebrew Bible existed. There were no Gospels.

C) I’m not “sure,” I know that they are not, because it’s a historical fact. Paul says:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15

He makes a distinction between the two.

D) No teachings of Apostolic Tradition go against the correct interpretation of Scripture. Name one.
 
ChristusVincit said:
A) How do you know they’re what God wants? If the Catholic Church has no authority, you have no assurance that she assembled Scripture correctly. And if you accept that she had authority in the period of assembling scripture (about 300 years after Christ) then you must account for why you think she didn’t and doesn’t the rest of the time. Without the Catholic Church and her teaching authority, the Scriptures could well be nothing more than the ramblings of some maniacs. Why do you believe the Bible is what it says it is? If I said I was a dog, would you believe me because I said I was?

B) What we call the Scriptures did not exist when Paul was preaching. Only the Hebrew Bible existed. There were no Gospels.

C) I’m not “sure,” I know that they are not, because it’s a historical fact. Paul says:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15

He makes a distinction between the two.

D) No teachings of Apostolic Tradition go against the correct interpretation of Scripture. Name one.
Click to expand...
Peter knew that Pauls epistles were Scripture
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top