Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[benedictus2]

You do know that this is about the Second Coming…right?

And in the same way that a shepherd would sort his sheep from his goats, so the Lord Jesus Christ in His coming will separate believers from unbelievers, believers to be taken into His Kingdom to join the glorified saints out of the Old Testament, Tribulation and the church who are going to be there in glorified form with new bodies fit for earth and heaven. He’s going to take those who are living who are represented here as sheep into His Kingdom as well. The goats are put out of His Kingdom.

Now notice verse 33 and see this analogy taken a step further. "He shall set the sheep on His right hand, the goats on His left." Now this tells us something right away. The right hand is the hand of blessing. The right hand is the hand of honor. The right hand is the hand of inheritance. That is the preferred hand. The sheep here are preferred in the analogy. They are submissive, they are gentle, they are docile. The goats are unruly and rough and rugged and so forth and they represent those who are the non‑blessed.

Okay, maybe you are reading the wrong edition of the Bible. There was nothing in this passage that indicated the sheep were believers and goats were unbelievers.

Did he say in this passage whoever believes in me will be the sheep and will enter the kingdom of God. No.

Did he say the unbelievers are the goats that will burn in hell? No.

What exactly did He say? Those whe performed acts of mercy (yes good works: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) to the least of His brethren did it to Him and these are the sheep that He will welcome into His kingdom.

There is nothing here about preferring the sheep because they are submissive or gentle.

It is clear as day (even a non-christian will get it if you give him the Bible) that Christ is saying those who do these acts of mercy are His sheep.

Your misrepresentation of passages in the Bible is truly worrying.

 

[benedictus2]

How do you define grace? There is a common grace, the rain falls on the crops of the believers field and the unbelievers field next door. There is saving grace, this is the type I am speaking of. Angels have no saving grace, this is unique to mankind. No one can loose their salvation once they have it for it is a gift of God…God doesn’t take back that which he gives. The real question is…were they saved in the first place.

Ha! there you are again. Now you have this question of whether they were saved in the first place. But isn’t it that once you proclaim Jesus as your Lord and Saviour you are saved,period?
Grace is always unique to mankind because the angels did not need salvation.

And yes, you can lose salvation, because although salvation is free, it does come with conditions.

Matthew 19: 16-22. When the man asked him what he needed to do gain eternal life, Jesus said keep the commandments. When the man said he had already kept the commandments, Jesus said: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

As Steve Ray said, you will gain eternal life if you follow all the ifs.

Personally, I have been given much grace because of all the sinful things I did in the past against people and God; and I thought I was a good person compared to others. During that time, it was God’s common grace that I experienced, now I have both saving grace and common grace and I praise God for that.

What you call common grace I think is Natural Law.

How and when did you acquire this saving grace if I may ask?

 

[ufamtobie]

How do you define grace? There is a common grace, the rain falls on the crops of the believers field and the unbelievers field next door. There is saving grace, this is the type I am speaking of. Angels have no saving grace, this is unique to mankind. No one can loose their salvation once they have it for it is a gift of God…God doesn’t take back that which he gives. The real question is…were they saved in the first place.

Personally, I have been given much grace because of all the sinful things I did in the past against people and God; and I thought I was a good person compared to others. During that time, it was God’s common grace that I experienced, now I have both saving grace and common grace and I praise God for that.

Noncatholic,

All Graces comes from God, period!

noncatholic, how many times did God take away this Common Grace such as keeping the 'Rain/drought away from his people in the Old Testament because of their sins? …Many times! Truth, is that if God can take a way this Common Grace of “rain/drought” from the Isrealites because of thier sins then Surely he will take away our Saving Grace because of sins.

Noncatholic, do you truely believe that you recieved Saving Grace because you have sined alot against people and God, so then I guess Judas the betrayer, is sitting very comfortable in heaven. NOT!

Noncatholic, above you mentioned that you sined alot against people and God, tell me since you say that you can never loose your salvation are you still continuing sinning against people and God?

Noncatholic, Satan likes you, for he loves what you are trying to do and that is to make people believe that you can commit all kinds of sin an never be condemned for it.

Noncatholic, did Jesus Christ come in the Flesh or in Spirit?

Ufamtobie

 

[NonCatholic]

Your misrepresentation of passages in the Bible is truly worrying.

No comment.

 

[NonCatholic]

Ha! there you are again. Now you have this question of whether they were saved in the first place. But isn’t it that once you proclaim Jesus as your Lord and Saviour you are saved,period?
Grace is always unique to mankind because the angels did not need salvation.

And yes, you can lose salvation, because although salvation is free, it does come with conditions.

Matthew 19: 16-22. When the man asked him what he needed to do gain eternal life, Jesus said keep the commandments. When the man said he had already kept the commandments, Jesus said: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

As Steve Ray said, you will gain eternal life if you follow all the ifs.

What you call common grace I think is Natural Law.

How and when did you acquire this saving grace if I may ask?

On Matthew 19 above; please get help; you don’t understand this either. I’ll get you started. What is the purpose of the law?

 

[NonCatholic]

Noncatholic,

All Graces comes from God, period!

noncatholic, how many times did God take away this Common Grace such as keeping the 'Rain/drought away from his people in the Old Testament because of their sins? …Many times! Truth, is that if God can take a way this Common Grace of “rain/drought” from the Isrealites because of thier sins then Surely he will take away our Saving Grace because of sins.

Noncatholic, do you truely believe that you recieved Saving Grace because you have sined alot against people and God, so then I guess Judas the betrayer, is sitting very comfortable in heaven. NOT!

Noncatholic, above you mentioned that you sined alot against people and God, tell me since you say that you can never loose your salvation are you still continuing sinning against people and God?

Noncatholic, Satan likes you, for he loves what you are trying to do and that is to make people believe that you can commit all kinds of sin an never be condemned for it.

Noncatholic, did Jesus Christ come in the Flesh or in Spirit?

Ufamtobie

Your knowledge and understanding of the Word of God is amazing…Not!
I will help you, it is a little long so hang in there.
Romans 6:1-23
**1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! **How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

You may want to read through to verse 23.
I put a link to make it easy for you.
searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ro+6&t=nkj&language=en&sr=0&l=en

 

[benedictus2]

On Matthew 19 above; please get help; you don’t understand this either. I’ll get you started. What is the purpose of the law?

Matthew 19:16-22 has nothing to do with the purpose of the law.

It is very clear. Jesus is saying one has to transcend mere legalistic observance of the law. How much more clearer does he need to b? He says come and follow me.

Ask yourself, what does it mean to follow Jesus?

 

[benedictus2]

No comment.

Very conveniently sidestepped the question of sheep and goats hhmmm?

Why is it that protestants do that when it comes to this passage?

Could it be that it debunks SF?

 

[sambos671]

Very conveniently sidestepped the question of sheep and goats hhmmm?

Why is it that protestants do that when it comes to this passage?

Could it be that it debunks SF?

Whats the deal with the large post and big letters? Which, verse are you saying that NonCatholic is evading? I’ll look at it and tell you what it means.

 

[benedictus2]

Whats the deal with the large post and big letters? Which, verse are you saying that NonCatholic is evading? I’ll look at it and tell you what it means.

What’s the deal with the aggro attitude? Since when have you been appointed the font size police?

Hmmm, You know what they say? When people start getting mad in a debate, that means they are losing ground.
Simmer down. It is not good for the heart.

If you will click on the arrows next to the name being quoted. You will be able to retrace the discussion.

 

[sambos671]

What’s the deal with the aggro attitude? Since when have you been appointed the font size police?

Hmmm, You know what they say? When people start getting mad in a debate, that means they are losing ground.
Simmer down. It is not good for the heart.

If you will click on the arrows next to the name being quoted. You will be able to retrace the discussion.

I was being funny. But I’ll retrace the discussion. because I’m mad (even though I don’t have a stake in the conversation. What verse? Matt 19?

 

[benedictus2]

I was being funny. But I’ll retrace the discussion. because I’m mad (even though I don’t have a stake in the conversation. What verse? Matt 19?

Which is why I could not understand your anger considering that I was not even replying to you.

 

[NonCatholic]

Very conveniently sidestepped the question of sheep and goats hhmmm?

Why is it that protestants do that when it comes to this passage?

Could it be that it debunks SF?

Just an FYI - the “no comment” referred to the following statement by you.
"Your misrepresentation of passages in the Bible is truly worrying."

The goat / sheep was posted a few more above the “no comment”.

 

[NonCatholic]

Matthew 19:16-22 has nothing to do with the purpose of the law.

It is very clear. Jesus is saying one has to transcend mere legalistic observance of the law. How much more clearer does he need to b? He says come and follow me.

Ask yourself, what does it mean to follow Jesus?

I’ll take you another step closer. Can anyone follow the law? The law is designed to reveal sin and show you cannot meet God’s standard…however hypothetically, if anyone were able to keep the whole law, then they would not see death…penalty for sin is death.
This man came to Jesus and said he kept the law…stop.

 

[benedictus2]

Just an FYI - the “no comment” referred to the following statement by you.
"Your misrepresentation of passages in the Bible is truly worrying."

The goat / sheep was posted a few more above the “no comment”.

And I pointed out in post #79 (below) that your take on it is entirely wrong. I am saying you sidestepped the point I made on post 79 because you only replied to the last line.
Perhaps by not commenting you are agreeing with my analysis. Which is good.

benedictus2:

Okay, maybe you are reading the wrong edition of the Bible. There was nothing in this passage that indicated the sheep were believers and goats were unbelievers.

Did he say in this passage whoever believes in me will be the sheep and will enter the kingdom of God. No.

Did he say the unbelievers are the goats that will burn in hell? No.

What exactly did He say? Those whe performed acts of mercy (yes good works: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) to the least of His brethren did it to Him and these are the sheep that He will welcome into His kingdom.

There is nothing here about preferring the sheep because they are submissive or gentle.

It is clear as day (even a non-christian will get it if you give him the Bible) that Christ is saying those who do these acts of mercy are His sheep.

Your misrepresentation of passages in the Bible is truly worrying.

 

[SIA]

Sia,

Please, don’t fight against the True Church My suggestion to you is if you can’t beat it, join it.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ,

not by the king of England with his Murderous hands now what church did he start?

I am sure his church was not mentioned in the Bible.

ufamtobie

The catholic Church WAS founded by Christ. The Roman Catholic church was NOT founded by Christ. Big Big difference my friend.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ll take you another step closer. Can anyone follow the law? The law is designed to reveal sin and show you cannot meet God’s standard…however hypothetically, if anyone were able to keep the whole law, then they would not see death…penalty for sin is death.
This man came to Jesus and said he kept the law…stop.

The law is designed to reveal sin? Obviously you are reading Romans into this. You are concentrating on one line and totally disregarding the rest of the passage.

The rich man left sad because He knew he could not follow Jesus because his possessions mattered more to him than Jesus.

This passage is not about the law at all. This is a challenge to the man to free himself from materialism. It is only through selling what he owns that he can follow Christ.

Christ is saying that obsession with possesion is incompatible with being a Christian. Christ is supposed to be our riches. Christ is supposed to be our treasure. As He says in Luke 12:34 - For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

 

[benedictus2]

The catholic Church WAS founded by Christ. The Roman Catholic church was NOT founded by Christ. Big Big difference my friend.

The Roman Catholic Church IS the Catholic Church. Your distinctions are baseless. You will find history quite illuminating.

Here are some links for you:

The History of the Catholic Church (diagram)

Time line of the Catholic Church to 1 – 500 BC

Timeline of the East-West Schism of the Catholic/Orthodox Church

I suggest you get hold of “Lead Kindly Light” by Thomas Howard. A very erudite Anglican who converted to Catholicism. He explains here how untenable the claim of Anglicans that they are catholics with a small c.

 

[Callin]

The catholic Church WAS founded by Christ. The Roman Catholic church was NOT founded by Christ. Big Big difference my friend.

Just because I’m curious as to your views on The RCC’s origins:

If not Christ, then who founded it?

 

[benedictus2]

SIA,

I would like to piggyback on this question and ask you to provide full reasoned and historical support for whatever answer you will give to Callin’s question.

Just because I’m curious as to your views on The RCC’s origins:

If not Christ, then who founded it?