What is the difference in Protestants being "saved" and Catholic salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have been here before…

The early Church…how far back…and consider the times…the Diaspora of the Church of Jerusalem…

St. Justin the Martyr described the Mass to the Roman emperor in 154 ad, presenting the parts, tone, spirit, and intent of the Mass that have save basics today…and this description of the Mass was how it was offered throughout the entire ancient Christian world…it used the Septuagint, the one referenced by Our Lord, His apostles, and St. Paul. We had bishops, presbyters, deacons, priests…these mentioned in the New Testament.

Pray for faith…I had to so I could complete my religion…by taking one step believing the Catholic Church is the Church truly founded by Christ.
 
REPLY:

**My comments to eazyduzit **

The above post is very good and shares God’s truth.

What I find often with our Non-Catholic friends is a tendency to seek and be satisfied with an “either OR” position; when the reality is both:)

As indicated above the bible cannot contradict itself; and remain faithful to God’s Teachings.

God’s infinite Wisdom is clearly evident in the number "One"

Yahweh insisted on belief in One God; One and Only one set of Faith beliefs and even Thchoose Only One "Chosen Peopl
e"

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God: and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from the work prison of the Egyptians;

Leviticus 19:37
Keep all my precepts, and all my judgments, and do them. I am the Lord; it ought not be a surprise that Jesus; **following His own OT Tradition ALSO Choose JUST ONE:
**
One True God ; the 1st Commandment

One set of Faith beliefs: Eph 4: 1-7

And Just One Church: Mt. 16: 18-19 & 28:19-20

WHY?
🤷

Because when there is only ONE Right answer; only One TRUTH per defined issue; man ought not find it impossible to choose the right “ONE”

God Bless you, and thanks for your great reply:thumbsup:

Patrick
Thanks for the complement Patrick 😃

And i appreciate your faith in “one” truth,so i don’t get why you insist that salvation is a “both and”? Rm. 11:6 insists that it is either by grace or by works, not a mixture or a “both and”.

One reason that causes different interpretations in James is that some see the word “justified” as synonymous with “salvation” . I do not accept it that way. In v.8 James says “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, …ye do well”. He does not say this counts toward salvation. If a man must have a certain amount of “good works” to qualify for salvation, then one could never be sure if he had enough. Where is the cutoff point? If I was a bigger sinner do i need more works? Surely you see the problem.

However I agree that there can only be one church, as there can only be one body and one bride. But the NT also uses “The churches of Christ” as in Rm.16:16. “Churches” appears as plural over 30 times. I think we can say that here we have a legitimate case for your “both and” .🙂
 
REPLY:

**My comments to eazyduzit **

The above post is very good and shares God’s truth.

What I find often with our Non-Catholic friends is a tendency to seek and be satisfied with an “either OR” position; when the reality is both:)

As indicated above the bible cannot contradict itself; and remain faithful to God’s Teachings.

God’s infinite Wisdom is clearly evident in the number "One"

Yahweh insisted on belief in One God; One and Only one set of Faith beliefs and even Thchoose Only One "Chosen Peopl
e"

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God: and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from the work prison of the Egyptians;

Leviticus 19:37
Keep all my precepts, and all my judgments, and do them. I am the Lord; it ought not be a surprise that Jesus; **following His own OT Tradition ALSO Choose JUST ONE:
**
One True God ; the 1st Commandment

One set of Faith beliefs: Eph 4: 1-7

And Just One Church: Mt. 16: 18-19 & 28:19-20

WHY?
🤷

Because when there is only ONE Right answer; only One TRUTH per defined issue; man ought not find it impossible to choose the right “ONE”

God Bless you, and thanks for your great reply:thumbsup:

Patrick
Thanks for the complement Patrick 😃

And i appreciate your faith in “one” truth,so i don’t get why you insist that salvation is a “both and”? Rm. 11:6 insists that it is either by grace or by works, not a mixture or a “both and”.

One reason that causes different interpretations in James is that some see the word “justified” as synonymous with “salvation” . I do not accept it that way. In v.8 James says “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, …ye do well”. He does not say this counts toward salvation. If a man must have a certain amount of “good works” to qualify for salvation, then one could never be sure if he had enough. Where is the cutoff point? If I was a bigger sinner do i need more works? Surely you see the problem.

However I agree that there can only be one church, as there can only be one body and one bride. But the NT also uses “The churches of Christ” as in Rm.16:16. “Churches” appears as plural over 30 times. I think we can say that here we have a legitimate case for your “both and” .🙂
 
POST #231 from benhur
Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings
I can’t respond to the ect, ect ,ect.🙂 BUT to the points you mentioned; the answer over-all is a RESOUNDING YES!👍

I just posted a reply to PRmerger on the Papacy that he seems to IN MY OPINION feel is insignificant. Check it out. POST #240

**Acts 20:28-30 **[Douay premodified by Luther]

28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [29] I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

Acts 1: 26 “And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”[the Episcopacy]
The Papacy: See post 240

**Ecuharist **
Acts 2: 42 “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of thebreaking of bread, and in prayers”

Baptism Mt. 28: 19

The Priesthood
Titus 1: 5 “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee”
The rest my friend flows from God’s Granted Powers of the Key’s. Mt, 16:19 “And I will give to thee {all of implied} the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

IN that time and place the POWERS to “Bind and or Loose” were understood to be UNLIMITED Powers of Governance; as was common in “walled in cites” like Jerusalem. The King appointed One Man to RULE in his name and make all day to day decisions. If you’d like more in send me a private message.

NOT all of the Seven Sacraments were fully developed at the formation of the Church [singular; Mt. 16: 18}; BUT that is why Christ appointed Peter as the Head; to build and develop the One True Church. Again, if you seek further evidence just send me a private message. Space is limited so I can’t provide more info here.

God Bless you,
Patrick
[/QUOTE]

Sorry Patrick, but I can’t let you slide with changing “presbyters or elders” to “priests”. If Paul meant priest he would have written “hiereus”, in Tit.1:5, but he wrote" presbuteros" which means an" elder" not one who offers sacrifice.
I understand how you would like to change it to favor your side.
 
Sorry Patrick, but I can’t let you slide with changing “presbyters or elders” to “priests”. If Paul meant priest he would have written “hiereus”, in Tit.1:5, but he wrote" presbuteros" which means an" elder" not one who offers sacrifice.
I understand how you would like to change it to favor your side.
Why doesn’t the Greek word for “priest” in the Letter to the Romans appear in the Bible more often?

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-greek-word-for-priest-in-the-letter-to-the-romans-appear-in-the-bible-
 
Why doesn’t the Greek word for “priest” in the Letter to the Romans appear in the Bible more often?

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-greek-word-for-priest-in-the-letter-to-the-romans-appear-in-the-bible-
Also:

In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholic elders. That’s what the word “priest” means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today.
 
SORRY BUT THIS IS NOT “VERY CATHOLIC!”😊 Take for example the Marian Dogma’s

God Bless you,

Patrick
Yipes, Patrick!

What you have just asserted, that the Marian Dogmas don’t conform to Scripture, is shockingly uninformed.

All doctrines, dogmas, teachings in the Catholic Church conform to Scripture. And Scripture conforms to Catholic teachings.

Lurkers: please be advised that what Patrick has asserted is glaringly and astonishingly ERRONEOUS.

[SIGN1]All Marian dogmas conform to Scripture.[/SIGN1]

Again, as Catholics, if there is a teaching that does not conform to the Bible, we must reject it.
 
Yipes, Patrick!

What you have just asserted, that the Marian Dogmas don’t conform to Scripture, is shockingly uninformed.

All doctrines, dogmas, teachings in the Catholic Church conform to Scripture. And Scripture conforms to Catholic teachings.

Lurkers: please be advised that what Patrick has asserted is glaringly and astonishingly ERRONEOUS.

[SIGN1]All Marian dogmas conform to Scripture.[/SIGN1]

Again, as Catholics, if there is a teaching that does not conform to the Bible, we must reject it.
Quite possibly Patrick is thinking of Sacred Tradition and how it backs up Sacred Scripture on some of our beliefs. I’m sure Patrick will clarify what he means, but this is just my guess.🙂
 
Quite possibly Patrick is thinking of Sacred Tradition and how it backs up Sacred Scripture on some of our beliefs. I’m sure Patrick will clarify what he means, but this is just my guess.🙂
If this is his assertion, then he needs to be clear that Sacred Tradition conforms to Sacred Scripture.

And Sacred Scripture conforms to Sacred Tradition.

But to assert that Marian dogmas are an example of beliefs we have that do NOT conform to Scripture…

is grossly and scandalously WRONG.

As Cardinal Newman said: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione
 
If this is his assertion, then he needs to be clear that Sacred Tradition conforms to Sacred Scripture.

And Sacred Scripture conforms to Sacred Tradition.

But to assert that Marian dogmas are an example of beliefs we have that do NOT conform to Scripture…

is grossly and scandalously WRONG.

As Cardinal Newman said: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione
Yes, one of things that I have been forced to do myself since coming to the forum, is to be very specific about what I mean when presenting my viewpoint on a subject. The nature of internet forums can sometimes lead to misunderstandings between people because we usually tend to type out quick responses, we have to always be aware of the different ways readers might interpret what we say, and take that into consideration. I must admit though, sometimes it’s easier said than done. 🙂
 
As Jesus said "and you shall receive POWER " after the Holy Spirit comes upon you–

Who has more presence of the Holy Spirit – NON catholic’s or catholics?

Who functions – in the 9 + Gifts and Keys of the Holy Spirit – Catholic’s ? or

as Peter said in Acts – God is no respector of persons–

now to understand scripture – there I one INFALLIBLE RULE–

you have to read it in context – to what the author intended–
example –

Sorry Patrick, but I can’t let you slide with changing “presbyters or elders” to “priests”. If Paul meant priest he would have written “hiereus”, in Tit.1:5, but he wrote" presbuteros" which means an" elder" not one who offers sacrifice.
I understand how you would like to change it to favor your side.

Titus 1:5English Standard Version (ESV)

Qualifications for Elders
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

saint paul warned that people would “twist the scriptures” to prove their point–

generally this is an example that these people are religious and DO NOT have the Holy Spirit - in demonstration - in their life–

so they memorize scripture – and try to beat you down with it

as for me and MY house-and church assembly - we function in the 9 gifts of the HOLY spirit

praying in tongues no problem-- interperation " NO problem"

as the Holy Spirit – and he will give you dreams and visions of confermation

yes signs following
 
=eazyduzit;13242256]Thanks for the complement Patrick 😃
And i appreciate your faith in “one” truth,so i don’t get why you insist that salvation is a “both and”? Rm. 11:6 insists that it is either by grace or by works, not a mixture or a “both and”.
However I agree that there can only be one church, as there can only be one body and one bride. But the NT also uses “The churches of Christ” as in Rm.16:16. “Churches” appears as plural over 30 times. I think we can say that here we have a legitimate case for your “both and” .🙂
=eazyduzit;13242256]Thanks for the complement Patrick 😃
And i appreciate your faith in “one” truth, so I don’t get why you insist that salvation is a “both and”? Rm. 11:6 insists that it is either by grace or by works, not a mixture or a “both and”.
Let’s take the easy one first: “ChurcheS”

The Bible was fully authored by the end of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century.
Flowing from that reality: Today’s Catholic Church historically [omitting Gnostics and other wanna-be Christ Church apostates]; was the Only; the singular Christian / Catholic Church to exist anywhere in the world until the Great Eastern Schism of 1054. That dear friend is about 1,000 years of Exclusive Catholic [acknowledged Roman centered] belief. Obviously as the One Church grew & expanded; Paul and John in Revelations referred to “churcheS” Plural and what we call today Dioceses

BUT their existence ADDS TOO, the One True Body and Church Christ desired to; and DID establish. Like more branches on THE Vine; bound together by ONE set of Faith beliefs and One Magisterium [teaching authority] of the RCC, which is exercised in two ways.

Now to your “both,” not one or the other question. Again I am greatly restricted by the CAF’s space limits; prudently imposed. Please send me a private message if you desire more info.

Some years ago I was asked by a student “if you HAD TO explain the Entire Bible in a single word; what would that word be? My reply was “LOVE”

Everything that exist in the Universe is there so that man MIGHT acknowledge God’s existence. In discussing Christianity; fathered by Catholicism; one would need to omit Jesus Himself if they were to try to minimize His Teachings and Personal-example of LOVE. The two, are not unlike the Trinity; are separate; but literally inseperatable.

Non Catholics have been taught that NO ONE CAN WORK THEIR WAY INTO Heaven; and we agree! Which is why I [and the RCC] teach that just as one can’t [absolutely cannot!] have “True Faith” without it stemming from God’s GRACE. In that same way, salvation is impossible without love: **Eph. 2: 8 **“For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God”

Man need not keep a balance sheet. That is God’s territory. The issue though is more complicated; and certainly more profound that “Just” [if I man phrase it so?] Jesus and Love being always tied together. It’s tied into how GOD has CHOSEN to forgive us our sins. His WAY; not some fabricated man-made it easier, modern day innovation.

Please **look up and read the following:

1 Jn. 1: 8-10
1 Jn. 5: 16-17
John 20:19-23**

These 3 passages summarize what GOD wants; expects and Himself-initiated as a Sacrament [a source of Actual-Grace]. Then it gets even more complex as it deals with God’s Love and His establishing Purgatory [which IS a bible teaching]; tied into the FACT that all who do attain heaven MUST absolutely either be “perfect” upon dying; OR if dying without unremitted Mortal sins; perfected after our physical death; until in God’s record keeping; we have re-paid for “the Temporal Punishment” ALL sin accrues; and which only God can track **] and our Charity makes partial payment for. The Nature of sin, and indulgences; too factor in, but require a separate discussion.

There is it seems, a slippery sloop to Protestantism’s teaching; failing to accept “A” leads naturally to rejecting “B” and so on; one error just leads to more and more. Let’s discuss it.🙂

**Mt 5: 48 **“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”

**Mt 19:21 **“Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me”
As I have expressed in other post; there is an infallible rule; not commonly understood outside of Catholicism:

In brief it explains that the “bible literally cannot contradict itself.” Therefore extreme prudence is necessary in culling particular passages. No one teaching CAN contradict another.

James DOES SAY: 2: 21-26

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? **For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”
**

My friend, please send me a PM if you’d like a more detailed explanation.

**Heb.6: 10 **“For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

**Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works **deserve.”
God Bless you,
Patrick
 
=PRmerger;13242866]Yipes, Patrick!
What you have just asserted, that the Marian Dogmas don’t conform to Scripture, is shockingly uninformed.
All doctrines, dogmas, teachings in the Catholic Church conform to Scripture. And Scripture conforms to Catholic teachings.
Lurkers: please be advised that what Patrick has asserted is glaringly and astonishingly ERRONEOUS.
[SIGN1]All Marian dogmas conform to Scripture.[/SIGN1]
Again, as Catholics, if there is a teaching that does not conform to the Bible, we must reject it.
No, 🙂

I didn’t say “don’t conform”; rather they are not specifically spelled out is the Bible. That in not an issue of conformity; it’s an issue of FAITH.👍
 
=PRmerger;13243115]If this is his assertion, then he needs to be clear that Sacred Tradition conforms to Sacred Scripture.
And Sacred Scripture conforms to Sacred Tradition.
But to assert that Marian dogmas are an example of beliefs we have that do NOT conform to Scripture…
is grossly and scandalously WRONG.
As Cardinal Newman said: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione
PLEASE READ POST #253:thumbsup:
 
I didn’t say “don’t conform”;
Excellent.

Then, again, what In His Grace professed, is indeed “VERY CATHOLIC”.

Any doctrine, dogma, etc. that doesn’t conform to scripture I am obliged to reject.

Also you need to clean up your posting style, please.

You are somehow removing the “originally posted by” part of the original quote, and I’m not sure why you’re doing that.

Please learn how to use the quote feature correctly, so people can simply click on the post to which you reference.

It should look like this:
This is very Catholic! 👍
See how it has the “originally posted by” and a little icon that we can click to take us back to this post?

You seem to be removing the “QUOTE” tag, and I don’t know why you’re doing this.
 
Hi Porknpie,

I would be interested in hearing what JonNC has to say.
Just a couple of thoughts:
  1. No where in the Book of Concord is there a canonical list of the books of the Bible. Technically, we have an open canon, not that historically rejected books would ever creep in.
  2. The Book of Concord speaks of the DC books in the same way it does other books of scripture. As an example: From the Apology:
Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15:14.
  1. I’m not sure of any other protestant communion that has a study Bible of the Apocrypha, as does the LCMS.
Does any of this mean that Lutherans would accept the DC’s on a par with the balance of scripture? I guess it would depend on how the books were to be used. In the sense that canon means taught from and used in liturgy, we already consider them canon.

Pork’s point is then valid, and I for one would welcome a great use of these wonderful books, and the Prayer of Manasseh, in Lutheran worship and study.

Jon
 
Also:

In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholic elders. That’s what the word “priest” means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today.
http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/0071/0071_07.gif

chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
 
Let’s take the easy one first: “ChurcheS”

The Bible was fully authored by the end of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century.
Flowing from that reality: Today’s Catholic Church historically [omitting Gnostics and other wanna-be Christ Church apostates]; was the Only; the singular Christian / Catholic Church to exist anywhere in the world until the Great Eastern Schism of 1054. That dear friend is about 1,000 years of Exclusive Catholic [acknowledged Roman centered] belief. Obviously as the One Church grew & expanded; Paul and John in Revelations referred to “churcheS” Plural and what we call today Dioceses

BUT their existence ADDS TOO, the One True Body and Church Christ desired to; and DID establish. Like more branches on THE Vine; bound together by ONE set of Faith beliefs and One Magisterium [teaching authority] of the RCC, which is exercised in two ways.

Now to your “both,” not one or the other question. Again I am greatly restricted by the CAF’s space limits; prudently imposed. Please send me a private message if you desire more info.

Some years ago I was asked by a student “if you HAD TO explain the Entire Bible in a single word; what would that word be? My reply was “LOVE”

Everything that exist in the Universe is there so that man MIGHT acknowledge God’s existence. In discussing Christianity; fathered by Catholicism; one would need to omit Jesus Himself if they were to try to minimize His Teachings and Personal-example of LOVE. The two, are not unlike the Trinity; are separate; but literally inseperatable.

Non Catholics have been taught that NO ONE CAN WORK THEIR WAY INTO Heaven; and we agree! Which is why I [and the RCC] teach that just as one can’t [absolutely cannot!] have “True Faith” without it stemming from God’s GRACE. In that same way, salvation is impossible without love: **Eph. 2: 8 **“For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God”

Man need not keep a balance sheet. That is God’s territory. The issue though is more complicated; and certainly more profound that “Just” [if I man phrase it so?] Jesus and Love being always tied together. It’s tied into how GOD has CHOSEN to forgive us our sins. His WAY; not some fabricated man-made it easier, modern day innovation.

Please **look up and read the following:

1 Jn. 1: 8-10
1 Jn. 5: 16-17
John 20:19-23**

These 3 passages summarize what GOD wants; expects and Himself-initiated as a Sacrament [a source of Actual-Grace]. Then it gets even more complex as it deals with God’s Love and His establishing Purgatory [which IS a bible teaching]; tied into the FACT that all who do attain heaven MUST absolutely either be “perfect” upon dying; OR if dying without unremitted Mortal sins; perfected after our physical death; until in God’s record keeping; we have re-paid for “the Temporal Punishment” ALL sin accrues; and which only God can track **] and our Charity makes partial payment for. The Nature of sin, and indulgences; too factor in, but require a separate discussion.

There is it seems, a slippery sloop to Protestantism’s teaching; failing to accept “A” leads naturally to rejecting “B” and so on; one error just leads to more and more. Let’s discuss it.🙂

**Mt 5: 48 **“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”

**Mt 19:21 **“Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me”
As I have expressed in other post; there is an infallible rule; not commonly understood outside of Catholicism:

In brief it explains that the “bible literally cannot contradict itself.” Therefore extreme prudence is necessary in culling particular passages. No one teaching CAN contradict another.

James DOES SAY: 2: 21-26

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? **For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”
**

My friend, please send me a PM if you’d like a more detailed explanation.

**Heb.6: 10 **“For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

**Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works **deserve.”
God Bless you,
Patrick
Having been through the." James2 debate many times, i know that this is a stcking point that always brings disagreement so i would like to explore this one thing in more detail. I would be interested to learn how you get to the conclusion that in ch. 2 we are dealing with a salvation issue. What i see is that. James is admonishing some who brag of their faith yet act like the world in respect of persons (with money) So he is showing them that their actions don’t justify their faith.

So I would like to hear why this is wrong and James is speaking of basic salvation?

Thanks for your help.
 
Having been through the." James2 debate many times, i know that this is a stcking point that always brings disagreement so i would like to explore this one thing in more detail. I would be interested to learn how you get to the conclusion that in ch. 2 we are dealing with a salvation issue. What i see is that. James is admonishing some who brag of their faith yet act like the world in respect of persons (with money) So he is showing them that their actions don’t justify their faith.

So I would like to hear why this is wrong and James is speaking of basic salvation?

Thanks for your help.
James 2:14-26 clearly is talking about salvation and justification along with faith and works, those four words are used throughout these verses. There is nothing difficult here to understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top