False Christs

[DHK]

Nonsense? Really? All the research I have done tells me I'm right on the money. Although I understand your reluctance to include the churches I listed in my post as evangelical, very few people disagree with me.

Almost everyone on this board will disagree with you.
Here is your list:
Oneness Pentecostals--This is a cult that does not preach the gospel but believes tongues and baptism are necessary to salvation. It is not in the "evangelical camp."

Charismatics--This is a conglomerate of many different churches, very few of which are actually "evangelical." Most rely on experience rather then the gospel, therefore I count them out.

'Easy believism' Baptists--This term is simply a pejorative used by Calvinists on this board for Baptists that are not Calvinists. Most are evangelical.

Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel churches--They preach "another gospel", not the gospel of Christ, and therefore are not of the evangelical camp.

Churches of Chris--This is a cult that requires baptism for salvation.

SDA--As you probably know I also consider SDA as a cult.

You are badly misinformed if you think that you can include cults in the realm of the evangelicals. Your post is simply mud slinging and ignorance.

So, although you feel I haven't done any research about the evangelical wing of Christianity, here is an example of who is considered evangelical within Protestantism. Btw, the churches I listed hold vastly different doctrines from each other) is held by very few educated people.

There are Hindu medical doctors, others holding Ph.d's, teachers, and other professionals that go and baptize themselves in the Ganges River to wash away their sins (just as the superstitious RCC does).
Educated and sincere doesn't make one right, it just makes them foolish and wrong.
You are foolish and wrong to list or lump all the churches you did into one group because you have not done your homework properly as you claim. You seem to be ignorant of the word "evangelical" which is "to be an "evangel" or to preach the gospel, the gospel of Christ, as it was in the Word of God.

"Evangelical" is an umbrella term which Includes Christian Identity, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Reconstructionist, some Baptist (many American Baptists shudder if they are referred to as evangelicals or fundamentalist) and many other groups of denominations.

Your definition is questionable. The ones you include are wrong.
The American Baptist is liberal not evangelical.
Reconstructionist is not evangelical.
Even if a person has some "Christian identity" that doesn't make them evangelical, like the Church of England (which is not evangelical).

Some examples of evangelical denominations are: [Assemblies of God, Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion; Church of Christ, Churches of God in Christ, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, National Progressive Baptist Church, Nondenominational, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. Many theologians would also include as evangelicals the conservative members and reform movements within such mainline denominations as the Episcopal Church, USA, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church."

The ones that I have bolded are not evangelical as far as I know, and even some of the ones that I have left unbolded may not be evangelical. I will let some others comment about that.
You show yourself ignorant about evangelicals and are simply embarrassing yourself IMO.

So we have listed every type of church or denomination I listed in my post with the addition of the liberal ones that I mentioned I would not consider evangelical. Your definition of 'evangelical' is very, very limited and probably only few fundamentalist groups would agree with you.

It is limited to those that preach the gospel. Your list includes cults and many that don't preach the gospel. It is a ridiculous list.

Before you accuse me of spreading 'Catholic propaganda' notice that the site I took the above quote from is in no way Catholic. The group behind this website has no dog in the fight and is made up of an irreligious agnostic, an irreligious atheist, a Christian, a Wiccan, and a Zen Buddhist.

Religious tolerance is a secular site and has no spiritual insight. It often is inaccurate.
It is like going to an almanac and getting a description of any given nation.
For example, only 2.3 % of the population of India is "Christian".
But they define that "Christian" as including Catholic, J.W.'s, Mormons, every stripe of Protestant, all cults and Charismatics, almost everyone who is not a Hindu or Muslim or Sikh.
Religious Tolerance does a bit better but they are still secular and don't have much insight as to what makes up an evangelical and what does not.

 

[Walter]

Almost everyone on this board will disagree with you.
Here is your list:
Oneness Pentecostals--This is a cult that does not preach the gospel but believes tongues and baptism are necessary to salvation. It is not in the "evangelical camp."

Charismatics--This is a conglomerate of many different churches, very few of which are actually "evangelical." Most rely on experience rather then the gospel, therefore I count them out.

'Easy believism' Baptists--This term is simply a pejorative used by Calvinists on this board for Baptists that are not Calvinists. Most are evangelical.

Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel churches--They preach "another gospel", not the gospel of Christ, and therefore are not of the evangelical camp.

Churches of Chris--This is a cult that requires baptism for salvation.

SDA--As you probably know I also consider SDA as a cult.

You are badly misinformed if you think that you can include cults in the realm of the evangelicals. Your post is simply mud slinging and ignorance.

There are Hindu medical doctors, others holding Ph.d's, teachers, and other professionals that go and baptize themselves in the Ganges River to wash away their sins (just as the superstitious RCC does).
Educated and sincere doesn't make one right, it just makes them foolish and wrong.
You are foolish and wrong to list or lump all the churches you did into one group because you have not done your homework properly as you claim. You seem to be ignorant of the word "evangelical" which is "to be an "evangel" or to preach the gospel, the gospel of Christ, as it was in the Word of God.

Your definition is questionable. The ones you include are wrong.
The American Baptist is liberal not evangelical.
Reconstructionist is not evangelical.
Even if a person has some "Christian identity" that doesn't make them evangelical, like the Church of England (which is not evangelical).

The ones that I have bolded are not evangelical as far as I know, and even some of the ones that I have left unbolded may not be evangelical. I will let some others comment about that.
You show yourself ignorant about evangelicals and are simply embarrassing yourself IMO.

It is limited to those that preach the gospel. Your list includes cults and many that don't preach the gospel. It is a ridiculous list.

Religious tolerance is a secular site and has no spiritual insight. It often is inaccurate.
It is like going to an almanac and getting a description of any given nation.
For example, only 2.3 % of the population of India is "Christian".
But they define that "Christian" as including Catholic, J.W.'s, Mormons, every stripe of Protestant, all cults and Charismatics, almost everyone who is not a Hindu or Muslim or Sikh.
Religious Tolerance does a bit better but they are still secular and don't have much insight as to what makes up an evangelical and what does not.

I have no worries about 'embarrassing myself'. It is you who are trying to impose your definition of the word 'evangelical' on the world, not me. I have no doubt that most on this board would disagree with me, they think like you. However, they are not so much disagreeing with me, they are disagreeing with the definition that is almost always used to define 'evangelical'. I listed Oneness Pentecostals (although ALL Pentecostals describe themselves as 'evangelical') because of their heterodox doctrine rejecting the Trinity You don't consider the Church of Christ as 'evangelical', too bad, they certainly do. You don't believe that the LCMS is an evangelical denomination. They certainly would disagree with you. They even refer to themselves as The Evangelical Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. I bet Bob Ryan disagree with your claim that the SDA is not evangelical. You say the American Baptist are liberal and not evangelical. The American Baptist churches I know of describe themselves as evangelical but not fundamentalists. It is not me you are disagreeing with, fact is, you being IFB are in a tiny minority and most people use the word evangelical to describe the groups I listed. I know they have heterodox doctrines, that was EXACTLY my point. You claimed that all evangelicals are close in their beliefs but only if a person uses your VERY narrow definition of the word evangelical. Most people in this world have a much broader definition of evangelical. Your assertion that you aren't Protestant is rejected by the vast majority of church historians as well.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196819/Evangelical-church

 

[DHK]

DHK,I'd say it would be foolish to argue which of us has the correct interpretation of our Verses and passages that we show each other, yet you will still proceed to argue that your interpretation of any passage is correct and mine is not.

That is what a debate forum is for. Our debate forum is based on the Bible not the Catechism. We discuss scripture. If you are not here to discuss the scriptures and/or doctrine then what are you here for? Please answer.

What I noticed in yours and other Protestant posts, is that where I provided a direct verse or passage in response to your arguments, you and others will plainly contradict or plain ignore those verses. You did not directly answer all my questions either.

Normally I take your post paragraph by paragraph and answer each and every part of it. Go back and see whether or not I have done that. Then go back and see how many of my posts you have totally ignored; that have gone totally unanswered. Then tell me honestly who is telling the truth here?

I will forget all past questions { being I am on a Baptist site and must submit to your rules } except for this one question, and this is a very important question for you to think about and answer: Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? Yes or No ? I ask because, if you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then will you admit that your interpretations could be wrong? Again, this is important because you are telling me that my interpretations and all other Protestant churches are wrong. Yet, you are not giving me anything other than your own personal opinion for why you think they are wrong.

If I didn't believe my answers were correct, then I wouldn't post them. I believe my answers are far more "infallible" than what is written in the Catechism, which is full of errors.

Again, with all due respect, I am not anybody's judge. It is not up to me to say when one was saved or when one wasn’t saved. As Paul says in{ 1 Cor 4}, it is the Lord Who judges. Do you agree that it is the Lord who judges or not?

You are confused. The Lord has already judged. And if you don't know now what that judgment is, whether or not you are saved, then spiritually you are in a terrible state. As for me, I know that I am saved and will go straight to heaven whether or not I die today, this week or ten years from now.

We are not to pronounce judgment before the Lord comes. So, I will stand with Scripture on that point.

You don't understand the Scriptures. Jesus didn't lie when he said:
"I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish."
Has he given to you eternal life? How do you know? How can you know?

One is either in a state of grace {saved} or they are in a state of mortal sin {lost} – there is no halfway point between the two.

There is no such thing as mortal sin in the Bible. Show through the Bible the existence of mortal sin.

Nor did I say that one gains their salvation by works. The Church that I am a member of teaches that one is saved through Baptism {John 3:3–5; 1 Peter 3:20–21; Acts 2:38},

Baptism is a work. It is a work of the priest, not of God. He works to get you wet, and you receive his work.

and that this is an absolutely free gift of God – not because of faith nor because of works.

You are deceived into this lie. God has nothing to do with that baptism. Neither is it a gift of God. Man performs it; not God. It also has nothing to do with the new birth. This is a heresy.

That salvation is an absolutely free gift of God can be seen most clearly in the practice of infant Baptism, where the child cannot make an act of faith nor can he perform any work. He is saved gratuitously by God.

The practice of infant baptism was unknown until the 2nd century and not a regular practice until the third century. The early believers never practiced it. This fact alone demonstrates it to be a heresy. There is no instance of any infant being baptized in the Bible. There is no instance on anyone being baptized except as an adult, after they have exercised faith, and by immersion. So you have a superstitious belief that is denied by the Bible all throughout.

However, once a person is justified {saved} through Baptism, then they must continue to abide in Christ, or they can lose that salvation {John 15:6}.

A false premise leads to a false conclusion. One cannot lose their salvation. But the RCC never had salvation to begin with.

How do you abide in Christ? Through faith and works {John 6:54, 56; John 15:10; 1 John 2:5–6; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:16; 2 John 9}.

No.

In other words, God gives us a free gift – the gift of eternal life.

Not through faith and works, as you just said, otherwise it would not be a free gift. You just contradicted yourself.

We do not earn that gift, it is freely given. Yet, we have to respond to that gift. We can choose to not open that gift; to not apply it to our lives; to reject it – at any point after we have been saved. That’s why Paul warns the Gentiles about the possibility of being cut off from the olive tree {Christ} in{ Romans 11:17–24} – a verse which I previously mentioned, but which you failed to respond to.

I failed to respond to it because you have taken it out of context and don't have a clue what it is talking about. It will take time to explain that one to you. Romans chapters 9-11 are speaking about Israel and its place in history. The passage you referred to is a passage that refers to all the Gentiles as a whole in relation to all of Israel as a whole. The way that you used it is not applicable in any way.

That’s why Paul tells the Galatians that if they accept circumcision, and the law that goes with it, they will be severed from Christ {Gal 5:4} – another verse to which you or somebody else wrote was wrong..

Your interpretation is wrong. Paul himself kept the law and was circumcised.

Furthermore, I do not throw out the Books of Romans and Galatians – my Christian Faith teaches and believes every single verse in each of those books, and there is nothing in either of those books that is contrary to anything in my Christian Faith, and vice versa.

First you have to understand what the books are saying.

The problem you are having again stems from a bad interpretation you have made.

Then go to my interpretation specifically and show how it is bad. Don't simply say it is bad.

Romans and Galatians do not say that “works play no part in salvation,” they say that “works of the law” play no part in salvation. Does that mean all works? No, it does not. It means the works of the law that were imposed upon the Israelites by God in the desert. We see this quite clearly in{ Galatians 3:17} which tells us the law came “four hundred and thirty years after” Abraham. In other words, the phrase, “works of the law,” refers not to all good works, as you interpret it, but to the very specific requirements of the Mosaic Law.

The works of the law apply to all works. The book of Romans makes that clear, as does Gal.3:10. So does James 2:10 and 1John 3:4.
Sin is a transgression of the law--any law. 1 John 3:4.
In James 2:10, James applies it to the Ten Commandments. Do you keep the Ten Commandments? No. You do not. No one does.

As I previously wrote in a past post and that is, by your reasoning, a person can be saved, but then can go out and commit murder, rape, robbery, blasphemy, heresy, etc., and every other manner of sin, and never repent of those sins, and yet still be absolutely assured of their salvation. That, with all due respect, is plain crazy. If eternal security – absolute assurance of salvation – is true, then Paul’s letters to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to anybody then should say something like; Relax guys, enjoy life, sin all you want, because we're all going to Heaven regardless of our sins.

And I gave a rebuttal to that and showed you how it is not possible.
Do you remember my explanation?

 

[Rippon]

It is you who are trying to impose your definition of the word 'evangelical' on the world, not me.

DHK does do that.

You don't believe that the LCMS is an evangelical denomination. They certainly would disagree with you. They even refer to themselves as The Evangelical Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

That was foolish on DHK's part. It is a nonsensical claim that the LCMS is not evangelical.

Your assertion that you aren't Protestant is rejected by the vast majority of church historians as well.

There are a number of uninformed BB members who simply don't know Church History --so they deny they are Protestant out of ignorance.


And for DHK to assert that the Presbyterian Church of America is not Evangelical is equally absurd.

 

[Protestant]

I have no worries about 'embarrassing myself'.

Of course you don't.

The true nature of your 'church' is irrelevant to ardent Papists such as Lakeside and yourself.

The following article is deeply disturbing and troubling to all but the most ardent Papists.

From the website “Child Abuse Recovery” – March 19, 2014

http://childabuserecovery.com/are-c...ns-murdering-their-own-children/#.VS71Uk10zAU

Escapees from convent prisons, raped by priests, relate how their newborns were disposed of:

Today Nun-in-training Sosefina Amoa sat in a Washington D.C. jail awaiting 23 May sentencing for voluntary manslaughter in the death of her newborn. According to The Washington Post Sister Amoa admitted to smothering the baby she named Joseph after giving him birth at the Catholic Northeast Little Sisters of the Poor Convent.

(N.B. Judge, attorneys, and observers all waited in silence for two minutes before Sosefina Amoa’s sentencing Friday. Those two minutes represented how long it took Amoa to suffocate her newborn son to death, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Cynthia Wright.

Amoa, 26, was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter in February. Amoa, who is originally from Samoa will also face deportation after her release. http://homicidewatch.org/2014/05/23...tenced-to-four-years-for-killing-newborn-son/ )

Although the nuns reported Sister Amoa to police, Catholic authorities have not always been transparent about homicides committed within their secretive walls. According to child abuse survivors of Catholic institutions, it was common for priests and nuns to rape and kill children, especially a newborn. There was assurance from the Vatican that anyone tarnishing the Roman Catholic Church by reporting such crimes would be excommunicated and thus live in eternal Hell.

How many newborns died at the hands of their Catholic parents who were priests and nuns?

“There were babies born, many premature. I knew a newborn was going to be murdered. The mother would snuff the life out of them” stated a former nun who entered a US Catholic convent at age 14. “I became a mechanical human being belonging to Rome” she continued in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WkKmU_W8NU

“Nuns getting pregnant and trying to kill their newborns were commonplace in convents” said Sister Mary Chandy (69), a former nun with Catholic Presentation Convent in Kerala, India. She claimed to have saved a newborn when the mother, a nun, tried to kill the baby by pushing it into a toilet tank. Sister Chandy said, “That boy is now a student who lives the life of an orphan.”

Sister Chandy quit her Catholic order 14 years ago when a priest tried to rape her. When she complained about the priest, Catholic authorities branded her as a misfit according to this 31 March 2012 India Times article, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/Former-Nuns-a…

“They threw that little baby in the furnace and burned it alive,” said Irene Favel, (75), while explaining her tortured childhood at the Catholic Indian residential school in Muscowequan Saskatchewan, Canada. “All you could hear was this little cry, like “Uuh” and that was it. You could smell that flesh cooking.”

In 1971 Catholic Jesuit priests buried a newborn alive beneath floorboards of the St. Mary’s Mission School in Omak Washington. Clarita Vargas was 14 when she and two other native girls witnessed the murder by the school principal. Two nuns restrained the screaming native mother. Clarita never saw the young mother again, but discovered that she was impregnated by one of the priests.

“There were children thrown into furnaces ” said Native Elders Stee-mas and Wahtsek, survivors of Catholic residential schools in Canada. “The clergy got the young girl pregnant, then put their newborn into the incinerator.”

The elders discussed their childhood of abuse by Catholic priests and nuns in this video,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYkctM1k90&feature=youtu.be

Why didn’t these homicide cases see a court room?

In 2009 Clarita Vargas’ lawyers were refused investigations by the local tribal police and Omak Washington Sheriff’s Department, while the FBI claimed they would have to “get permission from the Catholic Church” before excavating the still-standing St. Mary’s Mission School where the baby was buried alive.

”Nobody’s ever gone to court for the death of a child” said Canadian Native Elders Stee-mas and Wahtsek about the deaths of 50,000 missing native children. “The Supreme Court judge of British Columbia told us that seeking justice was a fantasy.”

Back in 3 Oct. 1997 with a growing number of witnesses to child homicides at the Catholic native residential school in Alberni Canada, Constable Gerry Peters said, “We could never investigate all the deaths of students at the school. It would be too huge an investigation.”

This begs an obvious question: How safe were our children if Catholic priests and nuns weren’t made to bear responsibility for their crimes against children, including their own?

Sister Maureen Murphy was acquitted of murder charges even though the nun admitted smothering her newborn on 27 April 1976 in the Sisters of St. Joseph convent in Rochester New York. Sister Murphy wouldn’t disclose the name of the baby’s father, though she had resided in the convent for 19 years where the only males around were priests. The judge gave no reason for his not guilty verdict as reported by the Rochester NY Gazett, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19770304&id=LTkwAAAAIBAJ&…

In 2011 there were 500 US Catholic Jesuit Priest Sex Abuse victims who settled out of court for $166 million. No criminal charges were brought against any Catholic authority – even though witnesses like Clarita exposed the rape, torture and murder of children in Jesuit schools located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. Clarita claimed that today the principal who buried the baby alive, resides in an old folks home in Washington. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/us/26jesuits.html?_r=0

Stories of some of these and other Catholic priest and nun abuse survivors could be read for free in Kevin Annett’s “Hidden No Longer” found at: www.ChildAbuseRecovery.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/woman-studying-to-become-nun-p…

 

[DHK]

DHK does do that.

That was foolish on DHK's part. It is a nonsensical claim that the LCMS is not evangelical.

There are a number of uninformed BB members who simply don't know Church History --so they deny they are Protestant out of ignorance.


And for DHK to assert that the Presbyterian Church of America is not Evangelical is equally absurd.

The LCMS may be. There are many different kinds of Presbyterians, and many of them are liberal. I figured you would step in and correct me. That's okay.
Not all protestants are evangelical. Most are liberal. Most of the mainline churches have gone liberal. This is what Walter doesn't grasp.
He lists Oneness Pentecostal--a cult that denies the trinity.
He disagrees with me on SDA, also a cult.

Look (Walter), if you want to use the word "Evangelical" in the broad sense that you are using it, then one of the most evangelical groups that I know of is Islam. They go and "evangelize" for their cause.

If you want to get closer to Christianity, the J.W.'s and Mormons are frequently on my doorstep. But "recruitment" is different than evangelization, and neither means that a church is "evangelical."

 

[lakeside]

DHK, you wrote: "That is what a debate forum is for. Our debate forum is based on the Bible not the Catechism. We discuss scripture. If you are not here to discuss the scriptures and/or doctrine then what are you here for? Please answer." I have answered from the bible much more than from the Catechism, and why shouldn't I, my Christian faith is based on the inerrancy of the Holy Bible and the church that I am a member of is the church that compiled the Holy Bible.
Let’s look at Rom 8:1 – “There is, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Amen! I agree. All Catholics agree. However, I do not agree with your fallible interpretation of that verse. You say that it is not possible to lose your salvation. Where does it say that? Yes, there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus. But, nowhere does this verse state that everyone who is “in Christ Jesus,” will remain in Christ Jesus. Nowhere does this passage state that those who are “in Christ Jesus” cannot, at some point in the future, reject Christ Jesus and fall away from Him. Look at what Paul tells the Galatians who, according to Gal 3:2–3, have received the Spirit. Are they absolutely assured of their salvation since they’ve already received the Spirit? Well, not according to what Paul tells them in chapter 5: “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you…You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace,” (v. 2, 4). You cannot be “severed” from Christ unless you are first joined to Christ. But, according to you, once you’re joined to Christ, you cannot be severed from Him. Who should I believe: you or St. Paul? Also, you cannot fall away from grace, unless you are first in grace – saved. Once saved, always saved? Just doesn’t look like Paul believed in it.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you wrote: "That is what a debate forum is for. Our debate forum is based on the Bible not the Catechism. We discuss scripture. If you are not here to discuss the scriptures and/or doctrine then what are you here for? Please answer." I have answered from the bible much more than from the Catechism, and why shouldn't I, my Christian faith is based on the inerrancy of the Holy Bible and the church that I am a member of is the church that compiled the Holy Bible.

This is propaganda.
If your Christian faith was based on the Bible at all you would have been able to answer at least some of the questions I have given you from the Bible.
Most of your answers are: "The Catholic Church believes...
"According to the RCC..., etc.
Your above answer is: "My Christian faith is based on...the Bible and the church..." But is mostly the church, not the Bible you quote.
You still have not refuted any of the false doctrines I have given you.

Let’s look at Rom 8:1 – “There is, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Amen! I agree. All Catholics agree.

No they don't. I grew up a Catholic. My family is still Catholic--biblically illiterate, as I was. Most of our neighbors are Catholic--don't know two hoot about the Bible and don't care. I live in a nation that is more than 50% Catholic. I know what I am talking about.

I also know what the Bible says. I have been teaching it for 30 plus years.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."
The verse is speaking of salvation. To those who are in Christ, are saved, there is no condemnation and never will be. Their sins have been wiped clean: past, present, and future. They are not condemned, neither shall ever be. There is NO condemnation against them.
This is not just my interpretation. This is the interpretation of most Protestants. Jamieson, Fausett and Brown is a popular one that you can look up.

First: The sanctification of believers (Rom_8:1-13).
There is therefore now, etc. — referring to the immediately preceding context [Olshausen, Philippi, Meyer, Alford, etc.]. The subject with which the seventh chapter concludes is still under consideration. The scope of Rom_8:1-4 is to show how “the law of sin and death” is deprived of its power to bring believers again into bondage, and how the holy law of God receives in them the homage of a living obedience [Calvin, Fraser, Philippi, Meyer, Alford, etc.].
no condemnation: to them which are in Christ Jesus — As Christ, who “knew no sin,” was, to all legal effects, “made sin for us,” so are we, who believe in Him, to all legal effects, “made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Co_5:21); and thus, one with Him in the divine reckoning. there is to such “NO CONDEMNATION.” (Compare Joh_3:18; Joh_5:24; Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19). But this is no mere legal arrangement: it is a union in life; believers, through the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit in them, having one life with Him, as truly as the head and the members of the same body have one life.

However, I do not agree with your fallible interpretation of that verse. You say that it is not possible to lose your salvation. Where does it say that? Yes, there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus.

One is either in Christ or he is not. If one is not "in Christ" he is not a Christian at all.

But, nowhere does this verse state that everyone who is “in Christ Jesus,” will remain in Christ Jesus. Nowhere does this passage state that those who are “in Christ Jesus” cannot, at some point in the future, reject Christ Jesus and fall away from Him.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Look at what Paul tells the Galatians who, according to Gal 3:2–3, have received the Spirit. Are they absolutely assured of their salvation since they’ve already received the Spirit?

Paul asked them a question, more scolding and rhetorical. Look at the punctuation. It was a question. It was related to the error that he was exposing--the false gospel in Gal.1:8, which he said was "accursed."
Certainly they could be assured of their salvation. There is nothing to indicate that they could not.

Well, not according to what Paul tells them in chapter 5: “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you…You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace,” (v. 2, 4). You cannot be “severed” from Christ unless you are first joined to Christ. But, according to you, once you’re joined to Christ, you cannot be severed from Him. Who should I believe: you or St. Paul? Also, you cannot fall away from grace, unless you are first in grace – saved. Once saved, always saved? Just doesn’t look like Paul believed in it.

You misunderstand what this entire chapter is speaking about because you don't know the context which involves WHY Paul wrote the letter in the first place. False teachers, called Judaizers went to Galatia teaching a false gospel which had already been condemned in Acts 15--that circumcision and keeping the Law were necessary for salvation. This was that "other gospel" or that false gospel that Paul said was "accursed." (1:8).
When some of these believers started to follow this teaching they didn't lose their salvation, but they were foolish (3:1-1).

Now remember the majority of the very first believers were Jews.
Some of them wanted the Gentile believers to be exactly like them.
If you are a believer with a Gentile background, and a Jewish believer comes to you and tells you that you must be circumcised, what is your reaction?
I hope you know better!
What does this verse say?
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
--Put yourself in the place of the Gentile believer. What happens if they are convinced by the Jewish false teacher and he consents to be circumcised?
What will happen? I predict that he will be sore the next day. He probably shouldn't be traveling. But that primitive physical operation is not going to affect his spiritual salvation. That is what Paul is speaking about. It is not hard to understand.
Do you have children? Any male children? Were they circumcised?
Does their circumcision add or take away from their salvation?
This is what Paul is addressing--a false teaching that circumcision could affect one's salvation.
It is much like the same error that you teach that baptism could affect one's salvation. It cannot. Neither circumcision or baptism can affect one's salvation.

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
--Behold, I say unto you, that if you be baptized (as an infant before salvation) Christ shall profit you nothing.

 

[lakeside]

DHK. I will give you more Bible verses, because that is what you have asked for.{2 Cor. 11:2-3 } – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” {2 Cor. 1:24}. They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

{Eph. 2:8-9 }– Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace. But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. {James 2:24}

DHK, there aren't any "false Doctrines '' in the Church of my Christian Faith as you have stated. Jesus promised that He always will protect it from a complete apostasy, but He did say it would contain both "good and bad" members, including clergy. Not one church at anytime has in it members that are all saints. None.

Also just because some Catholics do not understand their Christian Faith doesn't mean that their not in Christ, the Holy Spirit keeps them practicing their Christian Faith while not projecting an attitude of being saintly, if those members you speak of keep the "Sacred Sacraments" then they are practicing Catholic Christians , regardless of how you or I 'judge' them. The power and influence of the Holy Spirit is much more powerful than the human finite mind.

Matt.7:21- "All those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved, They are judged by their evil deeds. "

 

[Darrell C]

I guess Thomas was wrong when he said he evangelized without any Written Scripture while preaching in India.

Chapter and verse?

While all those people that walked and talked with Jesus and his apostles must be all in hell because the only evangelizing they received was through "Oral Traditional Teaching ,''

Consider that not even the disciples of Christ acknowledged Christ when He went to the Cross.

We have a record of the early Church efforts here...


Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


...and here...


1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



...and the singular truth I would try to make is that the teaching of Christ and the Apostles was always based on the Word of God. That is just a basic Bible principle, my friend.

The witness of those who testified of Christ is not ascribed to men but to God:


Acts 1:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


First and foremost it is necessary for one to be led of God in evangelical as well as leadership efforts. And even when a notable leader steps out of line with what is taught in the Word of God...


Galatians 2:10-12

King James Version (KJV)

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.


...he must be rebuked for his error.

same goes for all the early martyrs, illiterate, blind and those Christians that could not afford a bible, all in hell, as according to you.

That's not the point. It reduces the Word of God to a physical item rather than the spiritual force it is. The Word of God is represented in truth concerning the will of God for man, and regardless of whether one has a physical Bible, one can still have the Word of God. Even those who have not heard the Gospel have provision of the internal testimony of God, not to mention the witness of Creation itself:


Romans 1:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


And even having the physical Word...


Romans 3

King James Version (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


...did not mean those who had it had the Living Word.

We can't and don't seclude the Word of God to a physical item, but as it is written, "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only." Doers, not custodians only.

same goes for all the early martyrs, illiterate, blind and those Christians that could not afford a bible, all in hell, as according to you.

Which Martyr would we look to who did not die for that which is written? Was it for Christ? Or for his particular Church? And where did he learn of the Gospel. How did he come to understand that he might turn in faith to Christ?

It wasn't apart from an accurate rendition of the Gospel accompanied by the Convicting Ministry of the Comforter, I can assure you of that.

At no time have I ever equated owning a Bible to salvation. So I am not sure how you could possibly levy this charge against me. It all centers on the truth, my friend, and when we find truth outside of Scripture it is questionable. The truths promoted by men, even when Scripture is said to be the basis, must be tested by each of us. We owe it to our families, if we stand, as men, as spiritual heads of households, to do this. Many people have died needlessly and tragically because they did not. And for those who have died because they did, I will again guarantee that they were willing to die because God had revealed to them the truths which only He can enlighten men to.


1 John 4:1

King James Version (KJV)

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


God bless.

 

[lakeside]

Darrell, Do you believe George Washington was the first General of the First Continental Army of these United States. yes or no ? If yes please give me Book, Chapter and Verse . If "no' then you haven't a clue about early American history, ditto for Early Christian History

 

[PreachTony]

Wow...just wow...just...:tear:

DHK. I will give you more Bible verses, because that is what you have asked for.{2 Cor. 11:2-3 } – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” {2 Cor. 1:24}. They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

{Eph. 2:8-9 }– Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace. But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. {James 2:24}

Ephesians 2:8-9 reads "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." That makes it pretty clear that Paul is excluding works as a requisite for salvation. James is pointing out how works are a natural offshoot of faith. None of us can do truly Godly work without first having faith, otherwise we are frauds, as you pointed out in Matthew 7:21.

DHK, there aren't any "false Doctrines '' in the Church of my Christian Faith as you have stated. Jesus promised that He always will protect it from a complete apostasy,

What scripture backs this up? I assume when you say "the Church of my Christian Faith" you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church. So what scripture backs up your claim?

but He did say it would contain both "good and bad" members, including clergy. Not one church at anytime has in it members that are all saints. None.

Again, what scripture states the things you are stating?

Also just because some Catholics do not understand their Christian Faith doesn't mean that their not in Christ, the Holy Spirit keeps them practicing their Christian Faith while not projecting an attitude of being saintly, if those members you speak of keep the "Sacred Sacraments" then they are practicing Catholic Christians , regardless of how you or I 'judge' them. The power and influence of the Holy Spirit is much more powerful than the human finite mind.

As stated above, we are not saved by works. We are not kept by works. Our works are a byproduct of our faith. We are saved by grace through faith. We are saved by hearing the preached word of God and responding to it, in faith, and calling upon the name of the Lord. Whether you like it or not, when we do that we are sealed unto the day of redemption by God. Otherwise you have a God who says to His people (and I paraphrase) "I give you eternal life" which is life everlasting, but then takes it away if they screw up, but possibly will return it to them. Is it truly life everlasting if it can be so easily revoked? Are we truly sealed unto the day of redemption if there our name is continually written in and blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life?

Matt.7:21- "All those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved, They are judged by their evil deeds. "

 

[Rebel]

The best way to know the truth, as close as we can get to it, is to get a literal translation Bible, or two or three of them, and a good Greek concordance, and sit down and thoroughly study first the Gospels, concentrating especially on the words and actions of Jesus, then the rest of the NT, and the OT prophets. Then it would be helpful to study the early Greek fathers and see where and how they agree with scripture and the first century churches, and even look for new light from them, as long as it conforms to and helps you understand the scriptures. Finally, get a good Christian history or church history book, one as unbiased as possible, and study it.

This is a good way to come to some firm conclusions. Bottom line also: Seek to follow the teachings and example of Jesus. You'll learn what love really is if you'll do that. If you will do that, I believe you'll see that there are some theological systems and teachings which are not compatible with what Jesus taught, not compatible with God's character and Who He is.

 

[Darrell C]

DHK. I will give you more Bible verses, because that is what you have asked for.{2 Cor. 11:2-3 } – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” {2 Cor. 1:24}. They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

Bad example...Eve was deceived. It was Adam who is held accountable.

Not sure how you equate the fact that Christians can fall into sin with loss of salvation. The very reason much of the New Testament is given us is precisely due to this basic principle. For believers, there remains the consistent teaching of Scripture that sin leads to death. If you understand that the Old Testament deals primarily in the temporal, meaning, when sin was committed physical death was a possible result, rather than eternal separation, then you come to understand that even today, even for the Christian, those of faith who sin are held still...to that standard of accountability.

Read Ezekiel 18 and keep in mind that eternal life is not in view. That comes only through faith in Christ. The Lord is not establishing principles which are eternal, but deal with the temporal. If we confuse that with consequence for sin in the eternal, we must also establish the demanded corollary, that we can be saved simply by keeping the works mentioned in that chapter, which equates to salvation by works apart from faith in Christ. That was the standard in that Age, but we have progressed to that which is better, a New Covenant with a New Mediator that can forgive us our sins forever, to the point, that unlike the Old Testament Saint that had to continually offer up sacrifice for his sin, we no longer have to.

{Eph. 2:8-9 }– Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace. But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. {James 2:24}

Again, read James understanding that James is speaking in a temporal sense. As mentioned above, the demanded corollary would be that a man can be saved by doing those deeds James points out. We need not have faith in Christ, we must simply give food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, for example.

James does not negate the rest of Scripture's teachings concerning salvation by grace through faith. Salvation begins with God, is maintained by God, and finished by God. That does not relinquish the believer from another basic Bible Principle, "Be ye holy...for He is Holy." James addresses the actions of those professing faith in Christ and making the simple point that our lives will evidence the salvation we claim to have. If that evidence is not forthcoming, then it is unlikely we have the faith of Christ.

DHK, there aren't any "false Doctrines '' in the Church of my Christian Faith as you have stated. Jesus promised that He always will protect it from a complete apostasy, but He did say it would contain both "good and bad" members, including clergy. Not one church at anytime has in it members that are all saints. None.

This too is a basic Bible Principle, and we know that there will be tares and false teachers among us.

So how do we discern them?


Hebrews 5:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


This discernment is available to every believer, yet as those rebuked here, not all will avail themselves of the ability to discern good and evil by reason of use of the Word of God.

Now you have to admit, my friend, that this...


Ephesians 2:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


...is pretty straight-forward and easily understood.

If a man says "We are not saved by grace through faith apart from what we do ourselves, it is not a gift ascribed to God alone," to what shall we test that statement by? We cannot uphold his declaration in light of this verse, can we? We cannot establish that Scripture contradicts itself, teaching both we are saved by grace through faith which is not of ourselves and that it is a gift and...we are not. That we are saved through the necessary works as well, and except we do those works we will lose the gift?

Also just because some Catholics do not understand their Christian Faith doesn't mean that their not in Christ, the Holy Spirit keeps them practicing their Christian Faith while not projecting an attitude of being saintly, if those members you speak of keep the "Sacred Sacraments" then they are practicing Catholic Christians , regardless of how you or I 'judge' them. The power and influence of the Holy Spirit is much more powerful than the human finite mind.

This conflicts with your attempt to show that Christians can fall away.

But you are expressing a Biblical Principle in regards to salvation in regards to the Saints:


1 Peter 1

King James Version (KJV)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

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


As mentioned before, the assumption is not that Christians will not fall into sin...but that they will. Again, much of the New Testament warns us of that, and is intent on making the believer aware of that possibility...so they won't. It doesn't mean that the salvation which is wholly of God is affected by that sin, but...the very lives of the believers are.

The wages of sin is death. For the Christian...physical death is still very much a reality, even as it was in the Old Testament. But what is different is that the believer, though he lose his physical life through sin...cannot lose the eternal life bestowed when he was saved, because that is precisely what Christ came to do, to save people from the dread penalty of sin. That is the central message of the Cross and that is the purpose of Atonement/Reconciliation.

Matt.7:21- "All those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved, They are judged by their evil deeds. "

And why do they go into eternal punishment?

Unbelief.

You present your proof-texts and I will show you, when it is made clear in the text that they are condemned, that they are unbelievers, not believers losing their salvation.

One verse I will ask you to comment on:


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Tell me if (1) you have ever given this statement consideration and (2) what you think the Spirit of God means to say to you and I when He made it.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

DHK. I will give you more Bible verses, because that is what you have asked for.{2 Cor. 11:2-3 } – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” {2 Cor. 1:24}. They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

Read the rest of the chapter, and stop taking Scripture out of context.
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
--Paul uses the first person singular all through this chapter because he started this church, spent one and a half years in Rome, won many if not most of them to the Lord, and therefore:
--"was jealous over them"
--"had espoused them to one husband" (shown them the way of salvation that they may have a relationship with Christ)
--that they may be presented as a chaste virgin to Christ (Christ will come for his bride--read Eph.5:25-32)
--but he fears they may embrace a false teaching not having to do with their salvation but rather with their walk with Christ.
--That false teaching was accepting false teaching about Paul--rejecting him as an Apostle of God while listening to others. Therefore Paul spends the rest of the chapter giving a defense of his apostleship. Read the rest of the chapter.

{Eph. 2:8-9 }– Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works.

You are wrong.
The entire verse centers around salvation or just three words: "You are saved." Subject and verb.
--By grace: a prepositional phrase modifying the verb (are saved) describing the means we are saved: saved by grace.

--through faith: a prepositional phrase modifying the verb (are saved) describing how we are saved: saved through faith.

--"and that not of yourselves": "and that' indicating the phrase is subject to the verb "are saved," thus "salvation is not of yourselves." There is no work that one (yourself) can do to attain salvation. Your works are out. (Not only the works of the law--all works). and that not of yourselves. Why? It is by faith alone.

--"the gift of God" ("it is" is not in the original). Salvation is the gift of God.
It is a gift; it cannot be earned. It is not of works. There are no works that can earn salvation, none--not of the law; not of yourself, not washing the dishes, not genuflecting before a cross, not reciting the rosary, praying to Mary, NOTHING. Salvation is the gift of God to be received.

--Not of works: Whether you want to define this as works of the law or not, really doesn't matter any more does it? Works of all kinds are nullified all throughout the entire passage. The verse does not qualify the phrase as "works of the law," but it is a moot point, since "it is not of yourself" that you earn salvation. It is a free gift of God.

"lest any man should boast." It is not of works because if it were, then supposedly one could vainly boast: Look what I have done! See how I have helped Jesus pay for my sins through my works. I helped him to atone for my sins on the cross. Part of that payment was mine. I did it! I did it! And that is the most blasphemous thing a person could ever boast in--the salvation that Christ provided which "is the gift of God."

The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first.

The verse teaches:
If salvation is not In Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone, then it is no salvation at all.

This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace. But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. {James 2:24}

Again, a verse you don't understand because you refuse the context which is speaking of practical Christian living.
"Show me thy faith without thy works, James said, and I will show you my works by my faith."

DHK, there aren't any "false Doctrines '' in the Church of my Christian Faith as you have stated. Jesus promised that He always will protect it from a complete apostasy, but He did say it would contain both "good and bad" members, including clergy. Not one church at anytime has in it members that are all saints. None.

I have listed them in two separate posts, and that is not even all of them. You have failed to respond to a single one. Why is that?

Also just because some Catholics do not understand their Christian Faith doesn't mean that their not in Christ, the Holy Spirit keeps them practicing their Christian Faith while not projecting an attitude of being saintly, if those members you speak of keep the "Sacred Sacraments" then they are practicing Catholic Christians , regardless of how you or I 'judge' them. The power and influence of the Holy Spirit is much more powerful than the human finite mind.

There is no such thing as sacraments in the Bible. Here your belief in a religion of works, doing to earn salvation instead of believing Christ shows up clearly. You don't believe in Christ for salvation. Rather you believe in keeping the sacraments, especially the superstition of baptism, that it will save you. Why not embrace Hinduism instead?

Matt.7:21- "All those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved, They are judged by their evil deeds. "

You didn't quote the most important part of that passage:
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The reason he sends them into the Lake of Fire is: "I never knew you."
They never had a relationship with Jesus Christ. They had a religion but not a relationship. Do you have a relationship? When and where did that relationship start? How?

 

[lakeside]

DHK & PreachTony, Rom. 4:3-4 - Paul refers to works apart from God's grace. We do not obligate God to give us grace like an employee obligates his employer to pay wages. Faith in Christ must be behind our good works in order for it to be considered a work of grace; otherwise, it is a work of law or obligation.

You use this verse {Eph. 2:8-9 } - we have been saved by grace through faith, not because of "works," lest anyone boast. This much-quoted verse by you and other Protestants refers to the "works" of the Mosaic law or any works performed in a legalistic sense, where we view God as a debtor to us, and not as our heavenly Father. Paul is teaching us that, with the coming of Christ, we are now saved by grace through faith, not by Mosaic or legal works.
This is why Paul refers to “works of ourselves” and so we can’t “boast.” Paul says the same thing about “works”{ Rom. 4:2,4 }– if Abraham was justified by “works,” he would have something to “boast” about. Here, the wages are not counted as grace, but debt. “Boasting” does not attribute works to God, but to oneself. But good works done in faith are necessary for justification {James 2:24, etc } because we receive rewards by grace, not by legal obligation, and we attribute these works to God, not ourselves.
{Eph. 2:10 }- in quoting{ Ephesians 2:8-9 },DHK, you and other some other Protestants invariably ignore the very next verse. Right after Paul's teaching on "works" referring to Mosaic law, Paul says we are created in Christ for "good works" - a clear distinction between "works of law" (Mosaic law/legal payment) and "good works" (law of Christ/reward of grace). Hope that helps you and a few other members on this B B Forum.

 

[lakeside]

In reply to all anti-Catholics that think that their interpretation of Holy Scripture is the correct interpretation, I give you many bible verses/passages that verify how mistaken your interpretation is. I believe in that One True Interpretation that was used in compiling the completed Holy Bible, that we all agree upon as the correct collection, unless of course you believe that some or all of the Books are not inspired. Do you believe all the Books are the inspired, erroneous correct canon of Books in our Holy Bible ?

Here are a few Bible verses to verify that your understanding of the Catholic use of 'works' is not what the Catholic Church really teaches.

Also, the word “justified” (Greek word ?) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham (so Protestants cannot argue James is not referring to “justification” in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn’t in Rom. 4:3 either).

Heb. 11:6 - faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. But this is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification. Faith alone does not justify a person. Justification is only achieved by faith and works, as we see below. Also, this gratuitous gift of faith from God also includes the grace of hope and love the moment the person is justified.

Eph. 2:8-9 – Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works, as we will see below. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace (more on that later). But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. James 2:24.

Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30 - the faith we have must be a repentant faith, not just an intellectual faith that believes in God. Repentance is not just a thought process (faith), but an act (work) by which we ask God for His mercy and forgiveness.

Psalm 51:17 – this means we need a “broken and contrite heart,” not just an intellectual assent of faith. Faith in God is only the beginning.

John 3:36; Rom. 1:5, 6:17; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Heb. 5:9; cf. Rev. 3:10; Ex. 19:5 – this faith must also be an “obedient faith” and a “work of faith.” Obedience means persevering in good works to the end.

2 Cor. 10:15 – this faith must also increase as a result of our obedience, as Paul hopes for in this verse. Obedience is achieved not by faith alone, but by doing good works.

2 Cor. 13:5 – Paul also admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are holding to our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Christian Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us.

Gal. 5:6 – thus, the faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. This is one of the best summaries of Catholic teaching. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures. Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6,12-13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5,19. Further, all faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith.

James 1:22-25 - it's the "doers" who are justified, not the hearers. Justification is based on what we do, which means “works.” Notice that there is nothing about “false faith.” The hearers may have faith, but they need to accompany their faith by works, or they will not be justified. See also Rom. 2:13.

James 2:17,26 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works are a cause, not just an effect, of our justification because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture never says anything about “saving faith.”You Baptists Protestants cannot show us from the Scriptures that “works” qualify the “faith” into saving faith. Instead, here and elsewhere, the Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” act together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also never says that faith “leads to works.” Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They are distinct (mind and action), and yet must act together in order to receive God’s unmerited gift of justification.

James 2:19 - even the demons believe that Jesus is Lord. But they tremble. Faith is not enough. Works are also required.

James 2:20 - do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Good works in God's grace are required for justification. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about “saving faith.”

James 2:22 - faith is active with works and is completed by works. It does not stand alone. Faith needs works to effect our justification.

James 4:17 - in fact, James writes that the failure to do works is a sin! So works are absolutely necessary for our justification.

James 2:15-17 - here are the examples of the "works" to which James is referring - corporal works of mercy (giving food and shelter to those in need).

James 1:27 - another example of "works" is visiting orphans and widows in their affliction. Otherwise, if they do not perform these good works, their religion is in vain.

James 2:25 - another example of "works" is when Rahab assisted the spies in their escape. Good works increase our justification and perfect our faith.

Joshua 2:9-11 - Rahab's fellow citizens had faith in God, but in Joshua 6:22-25, Rahab alone acted and was saved. This is faith in action.

James 2:18 - to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is "before men" and not "before God." Scripture disproves their claim.

James 2:14 - James asks, "Can faith save him?" Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.

James 2:19 - also, James reminds us that even the demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God, not with men. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.

James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham's justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.

Acts. 10:35 – Peter teaches that anyone who fears the Lord and does what is right is acceptable to Him. It is both fear and works, not fear alone.

Rom. 2:7,10 - to those who by patience and good works will be granted glory and honor and peace from the Lord.

Rom. 2:13 – for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is referring to the “law of Christ” in Gal.6:2, not “works of the law” in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The “law of Christ” is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and “works of the law” mean no faith in Christ, and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).

Rom. 4:5-6 – to him who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted to him as righteousness, like David, who was righteous apart from works. Here, Paul is emphasizing that works must be done in faith, not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (God owes us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us). Hence, Paul accepts the works performed under God’s forbearance (grace) in Rom. 2:7,10,13 (see also Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; and 2 Corinthians 5:10) which lead to justification and eternal life. These verses have nothing to do with “faith alone.” Paul uses the word “alone” three times in Rom. 4:12,16,23, but never uses it with “faith.” Certainly, if he wanted to teach “faith alone,” he would have done so.

Rom. 6:16 - obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience is a good "work," an act of the will, which leads to righteousness before God.


Phil. 4:17 – Paul says “I seek the fruit which increases to your credit.” Fruits (good works) increase our justification. Paul says these works increase our “credit,” which is also called “merit.” These merits bring forth more graces from God, furthering increasing our justification as we are so disposed. But the fruits, works, and merits are all borne from God’s unmerited and undeserved mercy won for us by Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are excellent and profitable to men (just like the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16). Good deeds further justify us before God. This verse should be contrasted with Titus 3:5, where we are not saved by works of righteousness “we have done.” As further discussed below, in this verse what “we have done” refers to a work of law or obligation for which we seek payment. But verse 5 also says the “washing of regeneration” in reference to baptism saves, which is a work of grace, for which we are rewarded by God in Christ. There is a distinction between “works of law or obligation” and “works of grace.”

1 Peter 2:7-8; John 3:36 - shows that belief in Jesus means obeying Jesus. Having faith means being faithful, which requires good works as well. Hence, obeying Jesus means doing works of love, not just having faith alone.

 

[lakeside]

couple more verses-

2 Cor. 9:8 - Paul teaches that God will bless us so that we may provide in abundance for "every good work." Good works are encouraged to complete our faith.

Eph. 6:8 - whatever good anyone does will receive the same again from the Lord. God rewards good works done in grace.

 

[Yeshua1]

couple more verses-

2 Cor. 9:8 - Paul teaches that God will bless us so that we may provide in abundance for "every good work." Good works are encouraged to complete our faith.

Eph. 6:8 - whatever good anyone does will receive the same again from the Lord. God rewards good works done in grace.

So when were you saved, when were you justified by God, and are you confident that absent from the body will bring you right into presence of the Lord, and no middle state?

 

[Rippon]

Finally, get a good Christian history or church history book, one as unbiased as possible, and study it.

You are unintentionally funny.