if the pope dies

First, the Church is not a city.

Second, Scripture says that the city is on seven hills.

Not the city is within a city that is on seven hills.

Why do you add to Scripture?

Why do you call Scripture a liar?

 

I hope you are really trying to understand. You stated:
First, the Church is not a city.
Yes it is. Actually and spiritually.
Second, Scripture says that the city is on seven hills.
Not the city is within a city that is on seven hills.
Yes it is. Rome is setting is contains seven hills, the Vatican is surrounded by Rome, so ...get it now

Why do you add to Scripture?
I have not added one thing to the scriptures, but it appears you maybe trying to take away from them.

Why do you call Scripture a liar?
Never did and never will

I really hope you are trying 2 understand.

 

Rev 17:18 very clearly says: the woman represents a city.

Rev 17:9 very clearly says that the woman (the city) sits on seven hills.


It absolutely does not say that the city is within another city that sits on seven hills.

For you to say this, is to add to the Book of Revelation.

This is a very serious matter.

Rev 22:18 warns that if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in the book.

 

This is what we have...a woman...wearing clothes...who represents a city.

This is what you say.

The woman is the Church, represented by priests who wear the clothes. But, the woman is actually the Church, which is Vatican City, which is not the city on seven hills, but inside of it. But, despite that, this "city" is still represented by "the pope."

You haven't added to Scripture; you've rewritten it. Keep arguing all you like. I'm done with this line of reasoning, because it's dead.

 

I believed you summed it up quite well: all is grace. Hope no more saves you than grace, works, etc. Hope is a natural result of the salvation process. Are you in heaven yet? Are you instantly zapped there when you are saved? What is the hoped talked about in Romans 8:24? Go back to verse 23. It is the adoption, the redemption of our body. Nobody has that yet. If so, we wouldn't hope for it. Notice that Paul says "for we were saved," past tense. What else would you like to know about it? I don't see your problem with this verse and OSAS. Since Paul talks about being saved in the past tense (actually, aorist indictative passive), it seems to mesh quite well.

In Christ,
Neal

 

sozo in Romans 8:24 is first person, plural, aorist, passive, indicative

In 1 Cor 9:27, adokimos is the equivalent of the English "reprobate" (i.e., "damned")

In Galatians, Paul adamantly exclaims to his Gentile converts that if they put their trust in the Mosaic ceremonial laws the Judaizers are condoning, they will lose their salvation.

I had an hour-long conversation on the phone today with a Baptist who is coming into the Church, and this was one of the issues we discussed. At this point in her journey, she no longer can see how OSAS is Biblical in the least bit. Neither can I.

[ October 02, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I believe OSAS is a topic for another thread, one that has been played over and over. I have invested time in it before, and honestly, will not again, at least at this time. While it is important to me, it is not necessary for my salvation. If I go around singing the praises of OSAS and yet don't live in accordance with being saved, I am a fool. So while it is a fun issue to debate, you will never hear me appeal to it as a justification for sin or a sinful life. Quite the opposite.

Then again, Carson, there are many things that the RCC teaches that I do not see as being Biblical in the least bit, and I could find others to agree with me. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, does it? (Yes, I am attempting to be light hearted).

God Bless,
Neal

 

"While it is important to me, it is not necessary for my salvation"

The Bible it seems is full of mental excercises and things for us to ponder but none of it is neccessary for our salvation. Then of course they say "the scriptures contain everything that is neccessary for our salvatoin". But once again most of it is not neccessary for our salvation. Protestants talk about Catholicism nullifying the word of God.

 

Amen !! I think Calvanism should be called "Augustinianism" instead and the way a lot of RCC apologists spout off Augistinian quotes all the time , you would think they would like calvin . I wonder also if they think Augistine was a demon , I do know though that His writing "City of God " was certainly demon inspired .

 

Here is the best explantion ive seen so far about the whore of babylon in revelation :

FIFTEEN EVIDENCES that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is MYSTERY BABYLON the GREAT, THE WHORE OF REVELATION 17.

Who is the whore/woman in Revelation 17? God has given us similarities to prove conclusively that she is the Roman Catholic church. What are these similarities of the whore with the church of Rome?


1. The WOMAN which thou sawest is that great CITY, which reigns over the kings of the earth. Revelation 17:18.

Question: Which city reigned over the kings of the earth in the first century?

Answer: Rome, no doubt. The Roman emperors were called "Pontifix Maximus". So too are the popes called by the same title.

2. She is called the "GREAT WHORE" 17:1. A whore is unfaithful to one husband, by having relationships with many suitors. So is the Roman Catholic church, unfaithful to God's Word as seen by her adopting so much false, unbiblical doctrine.

3. "With whom the KINGS OF THE EARTH have committed fornication. 17:2. The Roman Church has always sought to further her purposes by controlling politicians, kings and governments. She is the state church in so many countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, South America and Ireland. She seeks to control governments in every country. In Revelation 17:3, she is sitting on a beast, as a rider sits on a horse controlling it.

The early Church kept separate from the State because its task was to win people to Christ, baptise and teach God's Word. The Roman Catholic Church's association with governments is outside God's instructions, hence God calls this relationship "fornication" with the kings of the earth.

4. "Inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." 17:2. It is very hard to reason with a drunk person. The alcohol controls his mind so that he cannot see reason. So it is with many Catholics world wide, who are so convinced of the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, even though the Bible so clearly oppose it. They cannot see the truth of God's Word and salvation. They will not search the Scriptures to see if the Bible's claims are true. Acts 17:11. They are controlled by false doctrine, like alcohol controls a drunkard, so they cannot see Bible truth.

5. She sits on MANY WATERS 17:1. 17:15 tells us that "The WATERS which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations and tongues." The Roman Catholic church has an influence in many, if not every nation in the world.

6. She is FULL OF NAMES OF BLASPHEMY. 17:3. Rome claims titles and attributes which belong only to God, such as 1"Holy Father", 2"Father", 3"Monsignor" = my Lord, 4"Mother of God", 5"Pontifix Maximus", 6"Pope" = Father of Christians, 7"Reverend", 8"His Holiness", 9"Filii Vicarii Dei" = in the place of the Son of God.

7. "The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth." 17:9. Rome is well known as being built on seven hills.

8. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour. 17:4. Popes, cardinals and priests dress in scarlet on festival occasions.

9. Decked with gold and precious stones. 17:4. Much gold and wealth is possessed by the Roman church.

10. Having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. 17:4. Much sexual immorality is committed by priests such as fornication, homosexuality, child molestation etc. This is hateful to God.

11. "Mystery". 17:5. Much mystery exists in her services. For example, Latin services, converting bread to body of Christ, how long must people spend in purgatory etc.

12. Babylon the Great. 17:5. Roman Catholic mother and child worship was adopted from the ancient mystery religion of Babylon's mother and child worship. As Rome conquered counties, it adopted their religions.

13. The Mother of Harlots 17:5. Rome has given rise to many other religions, with practices similar to herself.

14. The woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. 17:6. The Roman church has constantly persecuted, tortured, and burned at the stake, any people who disagree with papal control and who try to break away. For example, John Huss, Savonarolla, etc.

15. The ten horn nations that the Roman church tries to control, turn on Rome, hate her, strip her wealth, EAT HER FLESH, and burn her with fire. 17:16. Eating her flesh is a very clever judgment on a system that claims to eat Christ's flesh every day. As Roman Catholicism eats Christ's flesh, so too will the antichrist eat Roman Catholicism's flesh in the future seven year Tribulation.

Excerpt taken from : http://www.users.on.net/mec/answers/64b_ro.htm

 

GraceSaves writes :

Im sorry , but what I responded was your statement that the reformation wasnt nessesary , yet in your "explantion" it seems you admit it was nessesary and I dont recall giving a "theory" of anything , since all I did was ask a question on the nessesity of indulginces which I see you didnt answer , and yes they are still used in the church : Indulginces Now again ill ask , do rich people sin less than poor people? I do understand by the way .

 

Please show me where I have made the assertion that none of it is necessary for salvation or that it seems that way. I look forward to your response.

As well, please explain your understanding of Romans 8:24, if you will. What is the hope if it is not what I said it was? And show where that hope is necessary for salvation prior to it rather than a natural outworking of it, please.

Also, could you please address why Paul speaks numerous times as though salvation is a completed event? I know that you can point out verses that appear to say one can lose his salvation, but what of the ones that seem to indicate the opposite. Any real explanation (both sides here) can't ignore half of the evidence.

And if you have time, please address the issue as to whether a person may be justified and not be saved. Is it possible?

Thank-you,
Neal

[ October 03, 2003, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Luther came to understand that the sale of indulgences was a symptom of a widespread misunderstanding of justification. Whether the work righteousness of the Catholics and Arminians or the denial of the efficacy of Word and Sacrament by the Calvinists and Enthusiasts; every false teaching in the church is an attack on the doctrine of justification.

The Reformation continues. And the process of reform includes correcting the errors of the Reform, the Baptists, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and all those who deny the essential doctrine of justification.

Luther would have been perfectly willing to be governed by a Pope who rules by human right. But he could not remain in a church governed by a Pope who declares that people must be saved by a system of work righteousness.

And this is our highest comfort, to clothe and wrap Christ this way in my sins, your sins, and the sins of the entire world, and in this way to behold Him bearing all our sins. When He is beheld this way, He easily removes all the fanatical opinions of our opponents about justification by works. For the papists dream about a kind of faith "formed by love." Through this they want to remove sins and be justified. This is clearly to unwrap Christ and to unclothe Him from our sins, to make Him innocent, to burden and overwhelm ourselves with our own sins, and to behold them, not in Christ, but in ourselves. This is to abolish Christ and make Him useless. For if it is true that we abolish sins by works of the Law and by love, then Christ does not take them away, but we do. But if He is truly the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, who became a curse for us, and who was wrapped in our sins, it necessarily follows that we cannot be justified and take away sins through love. For God has laid our sins, not upon us but upon Christ, His Son. If they are all taken away by Him, them they cannot be taken away by us. All Scripture says this, and we confess and pray the same thing in the creed when we say, "I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who suffered, was crucified, and died for us." Martin Luther

Not true. Luther did not sign the Augsburg Confession. The Church of the Augsburg Confession did not become the Lutheran Church until many years after his death. IMHO, this was a mistake. We should have remained the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

[ October 03, 2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Ahem...you're forgetting the Orthodox and, of course, the Church IN England. I agree with much RC doctrine, but STRONGLY disagree with the notion that Catholicity is necessarily tied to Rome.

 

" Please show me where I have made the assertion that none of it is necessary for salvation or that it seems that way. I look forward to your response."

This is more a general state of Protestantism as I hear it from Protestant talk radio in Minnesota. One guy says "you gotta have fruits to know you are saved". The very next program the guy says "once you say your sinners prayer its a done deal, going to church and all that is nice.". And I have spoken with both of these people personally and they call me a brother in Christ. The guy before the first guy preaches health and wealth and Open Theism while the middle guy blasts these doctrines (all on the same radio station). I REJECT ALL OF THEIR VIEWS. I worship the Eucharist as the body and blood of the Lord. I pray the rosary. They know all of this and yet none of it matters to them. If one of them is right I am in serious do do. But they say "oh well those are just issues that don't really matter to your salvation.". Then theirs Hank Hanagraph, the Bible answer man (same station) He has his list of essentials for Christianity. Of course this list differs from other's lists of "essentials for Christianity" and to tell you the truth I have never heard him expound on his list. The rest is just for winning arguements it seems. Then you come along an say of OSAS "while important to me it is not neccessary for my salvation". I interpruted this to mean, well you don't really have to believe it, "though it is true". Did I misunderstand what you said. This sounds to me like "belief in Jesus teachings is optional as long as you believe in his name". I tell you you do not know him if you do not know what he taught.
Protestantism is realtivist at the core, if not formally certainly materially. Sorry you don't like my words but they are true.

I will adress your other comments later as time allows.

[ October 03, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

trying2understand said and agreed to by Neal:

I added nothing. You are taking away. But if you can't understand then I guess you just can't understand. PS taking away is a serious matter also.

 

This is where discernment and a little common sense (which is lacking very much on both sides of the issue) is needed. All I can say to you is that I am sorry you have such a poor radio station! Clearly, all of these are not true. There is objective criteria to determine the truth. Not every thing that a Protestant (or I would say a Catholic) is truth just because they say it. They are following our culture, not leading it.

You can call it relativistic all you want. You have already called me that personally without even knowing me. However, to be relativistic, I would have to believe all these teachings are equally valid and equally truthful. However, I do not and reject them. I believe there is ONE truth. That, my friend, it not what a relativist believes. Do I claim to know all of that one truth? No. I am human. The RCC may claim to, but I reject that as well. They are made up of fallible, fallen sinners from top to bottom as well. Sin mars everything, including our minds and thinking. I would not be so arrogant as to claim to have right teaching on every issue. That is absurd! So, as much as you want it to be, believing OSAS is not a necessary for salvation. I don't know why you have problem with this, you believe. I don't see it anywhere in Scripture that we must believe in this doctrine in one certain way in order to be saved; thus, it is not mandatory to believe in it as I do for salvation. See?

In Christ,
Neal

 

Please show me where I said I agreed with what you have quoted (I am not saying whether or not I do, but I want you to show me where I said that I did). If not, I expect you to retract your false witness ASAP.

In Christ,
Neal

 

So please correct me if I am wrong: in order to be saved one must have correct understanding and interpretation of EVERYTHING that is taught in Scripture. This is what I gather from your post. Someone has to know all the truth and hold to the correct beliefs on everything in order to have salvation, at least that seems to be your argument. If that is true, you have just condemned every soul to hell.

Or is there something else? Are there some issues that are more foundational, more important, or more basic that are fudamental to the faith and have to be understood correctly? Other things have a truth value but, for lack of a better term coming to my mind this second, are not as important (I am not saying that the truth is not important, just the understanding of it with regards to salvation).

Interesting. The gate truly is strait and narrow. And I thought I was rather strict in believing what constitutes salvation.

In Christ,
Neal

 

I never said you agreed wuth me. If you will reread that statement it said you agreed with trying2understand.

Go here for a topographical map of the City:

click here