What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

In fact, following Mt 16:15, Peter affirms with great clarity: “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

Then Jesus, the Christ, immediately founds His Church – the Catholic Church – on St Peter as seen in post #13.
ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 1:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). The *Catechism of Trent *defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the whole world (I, 10,2). (Etym. Latin ecclesia, universal or an individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called together.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

It is crystal clear that the Church founded by Jesus is the Church He put His St Peter in charge of with all of His authority to teach, sanctify and rule as St Matthew elucidates so well.

The power of the Gospel is shredded by the unfortunate persistence on substituting one’s own prejudices.

If this is so crystal clear, the why did scripture writers waste their ink writing that Christ is the “one foundation” and the “sure foundation”? Everything that is important in the Bible has more than one mention. It is of primal importance if Peter is the sure foundation that will never move. Please show me all the prophecy and references that back up your interpretation. I already know about all your traditions, in previous posts, but if you are trying to convince a Pentecostal, please show something from the bible. I think I have already shown from scriptures that it is at least possible that you could see something else from it. Did Jesus say that Peter is the rock on which He builds? No, He said “and on THIS rock I will build my church”. You must admit that there are two rocks standing on that ground? So either one of them could qualify as a foundation. Just as you say it is crystal clear that the rock of Peter is the foundation, I can look at the same picture and see that it is clear that Jesus is referring to Himself as the rock. I have shown that the balance of scriptures back that up. Acts 15:7 show how Peter used the “keys”. “Ye know how that a good while ago (that is back in Mt 16) God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe”. That is, he opened the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles.

I totally agree that one’s own prejudices dilute the gospel.

 

[Abu]

Eazyduzit #494
Did Jesus say that Peter is the rock on which He builds? No, He said “and on THIS rock I will build my church”.

Another false conclusion, which is precisely why the false ideas remain.

The Sacred Scripture, with the N.T. written by the Apostles of Jesus, and authenticated only by His Catholic Church confirms: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18).

So that no one else might be misled similarly, the falsity is eloquently displayed by the reality of the true understanding of the passage.
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cephas” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cephas,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock.”

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

Cephas is Aramaic for Rock and Petra is the Greek. When he said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the two words meant the same thing.
[Bold added].

 

[KjetilK]

Maybe i’m different, but for me, its the spiritual things that are the “real” rather than the physical. My soul is the mind, emotions, memories feelings; the things that make me who I am. The flesh is dust. Its a vapor that passes away. Its not the real. I am not a body that has a spirit. I am a spirit with a soul that is resting in a body for this present time.

Above you claim to be able to “evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem” because you “believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel.”

Now, the core of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who became man. Note what the Greek text (of John 1:14) says: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, “And the Word/Logos became flesh.” The core of the Gospel, then, is that Christ is flesh. And that the material is just as real as the spiritual.

He is still flesh. His resurrected body was not a ghost. When St. Paul talks of ‘spiritual bodies,’ he does not distinguish them from ‘fleshy bodies,’ but from ‘soul-bodies.’ (1. Cor. 15:44-46) The translation you have probably says ‘physical’ vs. ‘spiritual.’ But that is wrong, or an older use of the term. The greek word is ψυχικός, ‘of or relating to life or the soul’ (from ψυχή, ‘soul’). That tells us that a ‘spiritual body’ is not a body that is non-physical (which would be a contradiction in terms anyway), but a physical body that is, in lack of a better term, ‘controlled’ by the Holy Spirit. A ‘soul-body’ is a body which is ‘controlled’ by yourself.

When you say that the flesh is “not the real,” that you are “a spirit with a soul that is resting in a body for this present time,” you are denying the basic Gospel. You are denying the Incarnation, the core of Christianity. You are basically going back to the 200s to side with the Gnostics.

But you are inconsistent, so maybe there is a way back: Could you explain to me how you can have emotions and feelings without a body?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

So eazyduzit,

You’re a Pentecostal?

I was a former Pentecostal before Converting to the Catholic Church. I thought the same as you. I thought Catholics had it all wrong. But truth of the matter is, I really didn’t take much time to really truly research the claims of the Catholic Church and what the Catholic Church taught. Anyways, I’m not the first former Pentecostal to convert to the Catholic faith. Just to caveat this, I was a member of the PAOC, spent 3 years attending Bible College. I still have a lot of respect for many of my College Prof’s though. I give credit to the Pentecostal Church as being one reason why I’m a Christian, as it was through the Pentecostal Church I began to develop my relationship with Jesus Christ. However, after years attending the Pentecostal Church and going to Bible College, involved in ministry, experienced the Charismatic excitement that is often found at worship gatherings etc … I had a great time but there was more, there was always more, I searched and searched and searched, I would spend hours in worship and prayer because I always felt there was something missing. Well, what I was missing was the Sacramental life of a Catholic. Obviously, I had to look at the teachings and had to question everything I was taught at Bible College. The bottom line is, who finally has the authority to say how scripture is interpreted? I mean, you look at the history of the Pentecostal Church from Azuzu Street etc at first the Pentecostal Church wasn’t accepted as part of the mainstream Christiandom and seen as a sect. If you don’t believe me, look up the history of the PAOC / AOG Church and see for yourself. It is one reason why the Pentecostal Church’s exist, because such people who were being baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit were being excommunicated from their church’s which necessitated a new denomination.

What made the founding leaders of the PAOC / AOG have more authority to interpret scripture than others before?

Did Jesus say that Peter is the rock on which He builds? No, He said “and on THIS rock I will build my church”. You must admit that there are two rocks standing on that ground? So either one of them could qualify as a foundation. Just as you say it is crystal clear that the rock of Peter is the foundation, I can look at the same picture and see that it is clear that Jesus is referring to Himself as the rock.

TO QUOTE FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS RESOURCES:As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ,

but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek.

The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.

(For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

It’s also important to note that a great many people believe that the book of Matthew was written not in Greek but rather Aramaic. At least, even at the Pentecostal Bible College I learned that the Bible wasn’t just written in Greek and Hebrew but that a portion of the Bible was written in Aramaic. Which is very likely to be the case since most of Palestine including Jesus, a Palestinian Jew who spoke Aramaic. So, with all that we know about Greek, we know even less about Aramaic. So when it comes to properly translating Sacred Scripture, especially in light of the book of Matthew having been translated from Aramaic into Greek knowing that by the time the gospel of Matthew was written there were no distinctions between Pedros and Petra and given the fact that it was no simple task to translate Aramaic into Greek it’s easy then to be misguided with what Jesus was referring to when Jesus said, “on this rock I will build my church”.

So how do you know, for certainty that Jesus referred to Peter as “little rock” and not establishing a living voice of authority from one generation to the next?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Above you claim to be able to “evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem” because you “believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel.”

Now, the core of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who became man. Note what the Greek text (of John 1:14) says: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, “And the Word/Logos became flesh.” The core of the Gospel, then, is that Christ is flesh. And that the material is just as real as the spiritual.

He is still flesh. His resurrected body was not a ghost. When St. Paul talks of ‘spiritual bodies,’ he does not distinguish them from ‘fleshy bodies,’ but from ‘soul-bodies.’ (1. Cor. 15:44-46) The translation you have probably says ‘physical’ vs. ‘spiritual.’ But that is wrong, or an older use of the term. The greek word is ψυχικός, ‘of or relating to life or the soul’ (from ψυχή, ‘soul’). That tells us that a ‘spiritual body’ is not a body that is non-physical (which would be a contradiction in terms anyway), but a physical body that is, in lack of a better term, ‘controlled’ by the Holy Spirit. A ‘soul-body’ is a body which is ‘controlled’ by yourself.

When you say that the flesh is “not the real,” that you are “a spirit with a soul that is resting in a body for this present time,” you are denying the basic Gospel. You are denying the Incarnation, the core of Christianity. You are basically going back to the 200s to side with the Gnostics.

But you are inconsistent, so maybe there is a way back: Could you explain to me how you can have emotions and feelings without a body?

eazyduzit has fallen dangerously close to Gnostic teaching when he separates the spiritual from the physical in the way he has. The physical and spiritual are more closely linked together than what many may understand. The two are inter-connected. For example, when we are raised again, like Jesus we’ll be raised in bodily form not spiritual form.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Jesus say that Peter is the rock on which He builds? No, He said “and on THIS rock I will build my church”.

Yes, He did. And in the context of that passage, Simon is “this rock”. Jesus is the BUILDER in Mt. 16:18.

I totally agree that one’s own prejudices dilute the gospel.

And Protestant scholars admit that it is only because of prejudice - anti-Catholic prejudice - that many Protestants are unwilling to admit that Peter is the rock. For example:

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

“The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.” (Matthew 14-28 Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470, JPK pages 36-37)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

 

[JMM1957]

QUOTE: "The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy."

Yes, because without this prejudice how else could that passage be interpreted but to mean that Peter himself was indeed the “rock” upon which Jesus would build His Church, Jesus being the “cornerstone”. The whole of Matt.16:16-19 becomes disconnected literally if you interpret Peter’s confession alone as the “rock”.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

QUOTE: "The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy."

Yes, because without this prejudice how else could that passage be interpreted but to mean that Peter himself was indeed the “rock” upon which Jesus would build His Church, Jesus being the “cornerstone”. The whole of Matt.16:16-19 becomes disconnected literally if you interpret Peter’s confession alone as the “rock”.

YES! Absolutely. In fact, much of Protestant theology has “unexplained wholes” or illogical conclusions. There’s a reason you never see Catholic Theologians converting to Protestant tradition but a multitude of Protestant theologians becoming Catholic.

 

[eazyduzit]

YES! Absolutely. In fact, much of Protestant theology has “unexplained wholes” or illogical conclusions. There’s a reason you never see Catholic Theologians converting to Protestant tradition but a multitude of Protestant theologians becoming Catholic.

Perhaps you have not followed this thread, but I have spent much time demonstrating from scripture that baptism is not regenerative. Catholics hang their hat mainly on the misinterpretation of 2 verses from John and 1Peter. I have shown many more verses from which it is unmistakable that when one believes on Christ, it results in salvation and eternal life. Jn 5:24 is an iron clad guarantee, but there are many more. I do not do interpretation as Rome does. I cannot pick one or two scriptures and and make them say what I want, and then ignore what the balance of the scriptures say.

Eazy can play hardball too. I don’t want to offend anyone, but it is a fact that all cults believe in baptismal regeneration. Mormons are so serious about it that they even take it a step further by baptising for the dead.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Oh dear friend,

I don’t think people are offended by you but rather see that you are simply ignorant but sadly willfully ignorant.

A. You assume I posted a comment without having read through this thread to gain a context for this thread.

B. You obviously ignored my comment posted above because it quite clearly demonstrates not only your error in biblical translation plus I mentioned the history of the Pentecostal Church.

C. We have shown bible verse after bible verse where there is clearly a statement of being saved through baptism.

D. Cults are cults because they teach heresy but cults exist because there is partial truth. So if they believe saved through baptism truth is truth.

Here’s a question:

Who says your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Eazy - this former Pentecostal convert to Catholicism can keep up with you in playing harball too! Remember what I said, I had quite a bit of Pentecostal theological instruction. I know all the arguments you could put forward and I bet an answer to most of any objections you may have.

Please answer my question:

Who says your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right?

 

[eazyduzit]

QUOTE: "The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy."

Yes, because without this prejudice how else could that passage be interpreted but to mean that Peter himself was indeed the “rock” upon which Jesus would build His Church, Jesus being the “cornerstone”. The whole of Matt.16:16-19 becomes disconnected literally if you interpret Peter’s confession alone as the “rock”.

Easy has not attempted to make that connection because it does not seem to fit, although it is a fact that some Fathers herald that view.

What is being demonstrated is the constuction method of the builder (Jesus). When anyone confesses by the spirit, who Jesus is, then he becomes building material for the church.

 

[eazyduzit]

Oh dear friend,

I don’t think people are offended by you but rather see that you are simply ignorant but sadly willfully ignorant.

A. You assume I posted a comment without having read through this thread to gain a context for this thread.

B. You obviously ignored my comment posted above because it quite clearly demonstrates not only your error in biblical translation plus I mentioned the history of the Pentecostal Church.

C. We have shown bible verse after bible verse where there is clearly a statement of being saved through baptism.

D. Cults are cults because they teach heresy but cults exist because there is partial truth. So if they believe saved through baptism truth is truth.

Here’s a question:

Who says your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right?

I like the citation that Erich offered in #381 because it supports my side. It reveals that even if by chance one has not been baptised, he will not be condemned, but only by believing is one saved from condemnation.

I am still waiting for just one clear verse about baptism.

 

[Magdalena59]

I like the citation that Erich offered in #381 because it supports my side. It reveals that even if by chance one has not been baptised, he will not be condemned, but only by believing is one saved from condemnation.

I am still waiting for just one clear verse about baptism.

There are Bible verses, you just have to accept them.

Romans 6 says, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

Colossians 2:12 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross

Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

When you read the Bible you have to take all of the Bible to understand it. You can’t just choose some verses.

If believing was the only thing that saved you, then the demons would be saved because as in James 2:19 God says: You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Can you answer, how do you know your interpretations of scripture are correct and other protestants are wrong regarding baptism?

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Perhaps you have not followed this thread, but I have spent much time demonstrating from scripture that baptism is not regenerative.

You have provided your own fallible interpretation of scripture. There are many, Catholic and Protestant, who disagree.

Catholics hang their hat mainly on the misinterpretation of 2 verses from John and 1Peter.

**Really eazy? By what authority do you declare them “misinterpretations” ? You still haven’t “demonstrated” where you get this authority. **

I do not do interpretation as Rome does. I cannot pick one or two scriptures and and make them say what I want, and then ignore what the balance of the scriptures say.

Yes, you do. You just stubbornly refuse to admit that’s what you’re doing.

Eazy can play hardball too. I don’t want to offend anyone, but it is a fact that **all cults **believe in baptismal regeneration.

I guess the Early Church Fathers all followed a cult, then.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Eazy - Can you show me who gives you the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture?

AND - How do you know your interpretation of scripture is right?

Historically the Church has taught salvation through baptism. It wasn’t until the Ana-Baptist moven’t began where you see a change in this doctrine.

You follow a doctrine that is relatively new in comparison to say oh the Church Jesus Christ established. I mean, if God is omnipotent don’t you think God would be capable of preserving the Church Jesus established? He is afterall , omnipotent and omniscient the all powerful and all knowing God who does don’t dwell in time but is the beginning and end!

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Here is what I see going on.

Catholics see their CHURCH as having the blessing of perserverance or infallibility.

But what I see in the bible is many churches that tended toward false doctrine even though they were true churches, that is, they were all founded by apostles. Ephesians had the worship of angels. Galatians were “Foolish”. Pergamos had those that held the doctrine of Balaam. Thyatira tolerated a Jezebel. Even true churches don’t have a guarantee. What seems important in the scripture is how each individual applies himself to the word of truth.
Example: Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments". (Rev 3:4)

Next, I see that that the promise to persevere is mainly to individuals.

" Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy". Jude 24

"Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time"1Pet1:5.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? …Rm8:35

“No man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” Jn10:29

“Wherefore brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fail” 2Pt 1:10

So in scripture, its more about how well the individual applies himself rather than what church he belongs to. How strong is my own relationship with Christ? That’s the only guarantee if there is one.

Let me tell you about a revelation I got from John Bevere. He said God showed him why Lucifer fell. Well, the sin was “pride” as we know, but how could an angel fall into sin? What was his problem? It was something that was deficient in him. What he lacked was “Fear of the Lord”. But if we have “Fear of the Lord” we will “endure for ever”, according to Ps. 19:9. That is a guarantee. What is"fear of the Lord you ask? It is hating what God hates and loving what God loves.

So all of s these things about church authority are really not a concern for me if it is not important in scripture. I think that’s why Mark and Luke do not even mention the part about Peter and the rock and the binding and losing because it was meant for Peter only and thus not important for us.

So this is what you referenced Eazy when I asked you, basically to show me how your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right. It doesn’t answer the question. Instead, you basically prove you are accepting this verse and that verse but then reject others. You can’t disregard any of Sacred Scripture and you can’t pick and choose which verses in the bible you want and then say one verse is of no importance…

Even Pentecostals will reference the Early Church Fathers. But let me tell you, at some point you came to believe the Catholic Church is in error. How do you know? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

When I can I’ll respond to what you posted more directly. But for now, you follow somebody’s theology? Or do you follow your own? How do you know your theology is right? Please answer these questions

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I like the citation that Erich offered in #381 because it supports my side. It reveals that even if by chance one has not been baptised, he will not be condemned, but only by believing is one saved from condemnation.

I am still waiting for just one clear verse about baptism.

Eazy - how to you reconcile the following:

James 2:24, " you are not justified by faith alone but by works,"

You know, the only time you see the words “faith alone” is in this verse. So how can you say that all you need to do is believe or have faith? It sounds like you are saying that it doesn’t matter what you do or how you live your life… "It’s OK to sin all you need is to have faith.

How do you reconcile the follow verses in the Lords Prayer
“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”

This prayer Jesus taught his disciples. We’re told pretty clearly that a prerequisite to being forgiven is to forgive others.

So you say you just need to believe?

So it doesn’t matter what I do? I can live a willfully sinful life and not forgive people and expect that my sins will be forgiven?

You clearly contradict not only James 2:24 but basically a good portion of the Lords Prayer.

How do you reconcile your contradictions?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

And as stated in previous posts… There is more ways than one to be baptized. There is baptism by blood, baptism of the heart, and of course the traditional baptism.

Salvation is not by faith alone.

We are saved by grace.

How do you reconcile verses that call us to work out our salvation?

Eazy- you say there’s no clear scripture verse but the verses we’ve given you are very clear. I mean, so clear and yet you don’t see how contradictory you are with the few verses we’ve given. It’s like you disregard the verses … You haven’t responded to one major scripture verse …

Peter says, “your baptism now saves you” what more do you need!?