Featured The False Doctrine of Purgatory

That loss is the part of the building they were working on.
You are forcing a fictitious purgatory into the passage.
Your fictitious purgatory lead to the fictitious indulgences, which ultimately lead to God rejecting Rome and Reforming His church to walk in truth rather than fiction.

 

Is there any who live by the law who are righteous by doing the law?

No. All our righteousness is as filthy rags before God.

Romans 2 is not declaring people righteous by their works. That false concept is why Paul spends chapters 3-9 declaring that we are saved by grace through faith. Our justification comes not by our works but by Jesus atoning sacrifice, which we, by God's gift of faith, believe and hold to be true.

What would be a good start for you is to begin questioning your churches teaching and become a Berean Christian.

 

A "Berean" Christian? That rules out Protestantism and leaves you with Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

I always find it humorous when Protestants try to lay claim to the Bereans, given that there has NEVER been a Protestant church in Berea (modern day Veria), until the 1980s.

 

WRONG.

The passage states clearly: "THAT ONE will suffer loss."
You cannot suffer anything in Heaven. It is impossible because everything in Heaven is perfect and nothing imperfect can exist (Rev. 21:27). So, by denying this final purification spoken of in 1 Cor. 3:10-13 - it is YOU who is forcing a different meaning on the text.

As to the tragedy of Protestantism - there is nothing that God delights in regarding the confused mess that is tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to have been "led" by the Holy Spirit.

The ONLY one who smiles on that bickering confusion is Satan . . .

 

Hey, how about "saved by faith alone"? Nothing in the bible about that. You guys claim you know the scriptures so well, yet you repeatedly ignore what it actually says. I seem to remember a verse that talks about "binding and loosing". Well, this is another place where the legitimate authority of the Bishop's of the Universal Church is exercised. Actually though, married clergymen are allowed in some instances of the Latin Rite.

 

Sorry Walpole, the Roman Church didn't even exist when the Bereans asked questions. They gave all of us the blueprint for questioning teachers.
Neither Protestant, nor Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox matter at all. What matters is God's chosen and elect people of the promise who are found in many many denominations.
Your pride in your denomination is not warranted.

 

Already addressed on more than one occasion. I reject your prooftext that is not supported by context.

 

You are incorrect. Most scholars contend Acts was written in the 60s A.D., while St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the 50s A.D. Furthermore, St. Paul writes this to the Roman Catholics in his epistle to them...

Romans 1:8 ---> "First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

Clearly the Roman Church existed and its faith was already heralded throughout the world.

 

Most scholars?

Paul went to Ephesus, Phillips, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth far before Rome.

You foolishly trust Rome rather than trust God's word. In the Bible we see God choosing his elect, predestined children of the promise. He never declares the church at Rome to be anything special.

 

Can you name one who dates Romans later than Acts?

You missed my point. Paul wrote to the faithful at Rome. Hence your assertion that the Roman church hadn't existed when Paul visited Berea was demonstrable fallacious. Clearly there was a Church in Rome and its faith was even heralded throughout the world. (No other Church is that claim made about.) Shortly after Paul's visit in Berea and Athens, he is greeted by Roman converts Aquilla and Priscilla (cf. Acts 18:2). Ergo, there was a Roman Church in existence.

Here is your "Godly scholar" John Piper affirming this ---> The Chronology of the New Testament

Maybe you'll take his word for it.

Non-sequitur. (No content.)