Love Alone Saves (Part 2)

[MennoSota]

(Which, incidentally, is through the Church Christ established).

That would be the church in Jerusalem. The one that met in the upper room. The one that convened the Jerusalem council.

What it doesn't mean is the church at Rome, which has fallen into heresy.

 

[MennoSota]

As for traditions, they are only useful if they align with scripture. Sadly much of Rome's traditions have no connection to scripture and thus are worthless in glorifying God as they represent heresy.

 

[Adonia]

Yes we are sharing opinions. Yours is generally based upon tradition and church teaching. Mine is generally based upon Sola Scriptura.

7 Key Differences Between Protestant and Catholic Doctrine

Yes, Church teaching, the one Jesus set up. He never said for all of us to go at this alone. He never just wrote a book for all of us to read and then figure things out by ourselves. This was never His intent, not a book - but a church, with men (Bishops) leading it to instruct the faithful. Bishops then taking over from those Bishops who have passed on, with the Church itself retaining the accumulated knowledge. We have it, you reject it.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, Church teaching, the one Jesus set up. He never said for all of us to go at this alone. He never just wrote a book for all of us to read and then figure things out by ourselves. This was never His intent, not a book - but a church, with men (Bishops) leading it to instruct the faithful. Bishops then taking over from those Bishops who have passed on, with the Church itself retaining the accumulated knowledge. We have it, you reject it.

You mean the church at Jerusalem of course.
The one at Rome was not set up by Jesus despite your fairy tale stories created by the guy with the dunce cap.

 

[xlsdraw]

Yes, Church teaching, the one Jesus set up. He never said for all of us to go at this alone. He never just wrote a book for all of us to read and then figure things out by ourselves. This was never His intent, not a book - but a church, with men (Bishops) leading it to instruct the faithful. Bishops then taking over from those Bishops who have passed on, with the Church itself retaining the accumulated knowledge. We have it, you reject it.

Herein lies the division. Ezekiel chapter 34 says it all. Why do you think men somehow became more reliable shepherds? I'll always follow the Good Shepherd provided living Word of God and the Holy Spirit. They will not lead me astray. Everything about Catholicism screams Replacement theology. Jerusalem is Holy, not Rome. The Jews are still the chosen, we are grafted INTO the tree rooted in the covenant to Abraham. Catholicism's elevated men don't hold a candle to The Word. Jesus walked in the midst of the seven churches, none of which was Rome. The Epistles and Revelations make it crystal clear that there was not an apostasy free age. It is soooooo much easier to follow men. It takes Faith to receive the truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."

 

[herbert]

Herein lies the division. Ezekiel chapter 34 says it all. Why do you think men somehow became more reliable shepherds? I'll always follow the Good Shepherd provided living Word of God and the Holy Spirit. They will not lead me astray. Everything about Catholicism screams Replacement theology. Jerusalem is Holy, not Rome. The Jews are still the chosen, we are grafted INTO the tree rooted in the covenant to Abraham. Catholicism's elevated men don't hold a candle to The Word. Jesus walked in the midst of the seven churches, none of which was Rome. The Epistles and Revelations make it crystal clear that there was not an apostasy free age. It is soooooo much easier to follow men. It takes Faith to receive the truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."

"xlsdraw,"

Allow me to try something here. What if I said this:

Your comments exhibit "what happens when you mix human logic and legalese with spirituality. We are spiritual beings. Trust the Holy Spirit. There is no greater teacher. Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." Keep it simple. Another brother said it best, he was more effective for Christ before he received all the letters after his name. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven an earth." We can learn a little from our brothers, but it is a drop in the bucket to what the Word and the Holy Spirit reveals. Of our own abilities, it is very difficult to unlearn what we have been taught by men. Trust that ALL power is possessed by Jesus and let the awesome power of the Word and the Holy Spirit do it's great work."

Do you see how that works? It seems as though everybody else is guilty of mixing things that should not be mixed (human logic and spirituality) unless it's you doing the mixing. If you're mixing human logic and spirituality, apparently, you have a valid point to make. When others do this, they are just not following the Spirit (like you do)...

As for the following comments, please consider my replies:

1. You said: "Why do you think men somehow became more reliable shepherds?"

I'll tell you exactly why. Because Jesus said so. Let's consider the following: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were ffor fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Please consider the fact that:

a) Jesus sent the Apostles with the very authority given to him by the Father. That means that "all" the authority granted to Christ by the Father was, for the purposes of the institution of His Church, conferred upon the Apostles.

b) The Apostles were given the authority to forgive sin, an authority which the Jews of Christ's days said belonged to God alone.

c) Notice, too, that Christ breathed on them, saying "Receive the Holy Spirit." These men, then, were truly and literally "God-breathed." All of this is why for 1,500 years despite the corruption that plagues any institution, people remained faithful to Christ's Church.

2. You said that "It is soooooo much easier to follow men."

a) Catholics aren't following "men." We are following Christ. The fact that Christ has included the co-operation of men in his work shouldn't be understood as a fault in Christian theology.

b) In a qualified sense, though, I'd agree. It is easier for some to follow the teachings of men. Take those who hold to "Sola Scriptura" for example, they are certainly following men, since their doctrine is nowhere taught in Scripture or revealed by a genuine prophet or angel. and in some ways it's easy for them, I guess. At the very least, it's (wrongly) self-assuring.

Finally, please remember that I was a Baptist Christian until the age of 30. I am almost 40. Over time I came to see things I'd always accepted according to a different light. If someone wishes to suggest that I was "led astray" I am all ears. I'd invite him to explain exactly how the doctrines I now accept are flawed and/or unGodly. Because it is through the drawn-out experience of "conversion" that I speak and that I'd ask you to please consider the fact that the Bible does not come with a divinely-revealed Table of Contents. So no matter how you consider it, you're relying upon the judgment of men (incidentally Catholic Councils, to be precise) to recognize those texts which are rightly accepted by Christians as Scripture. You're following a "tradition of men" derived from the authority granted by Christ to His Church to affirm those texts which you accept as validly canonical. There is no way to avoid this fact without straying into the realm of philosophical/historical consideration and leaving the realm of "faith" which is grounded in the Word of God, and that deposit "once delivered for all the saints." In other words, you might come up with a collection of 27 New Testament texts as a "New Testament" through historical inquiry. But such a conclusion wouldn't be something that would be binding upon you as a matter of faith.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts concerning these considerations. As a matter of fact, I have never heard a single non-Catholic speak directly to these challenges with anything that resembles a logical argument.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

 

[herbert]

@steaver & @xlsdraw:

You have both raised some issues, I responded with a few thoughts of my own. It would be great to hear from either of you. Maybe a new thread will have to be started in order for this conversation to continue.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[steaver]

So you're insisting that if a person does not explicitly profess belief in Jesus Christ during his earthly life, the wrath of God remains on him, period. You say that is our impasse. You say that to suggest someone "might" be saved without such a profession is to contradict the "He that believeth..." passage you posted above.

Tell you what Herbert. You keep saying I am wrong to believe what I am reading. How about you explain to us what YOU believe Jesus was saying since it seems to not be as clear to you as it is to me.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3).

 

[steaver]

It seems that for you and "MennoSota," disagreement is acceptable. But there is something that both of you hold to, which Catholics reject, which renders our profession of faith in Christ null.

I've never said your profession was null. My contention is that Catholicism does not love the world enough to warn the unbeliever of their condemnation and their need to escape God's wrath through receiving Jesus Christ as Lord God and Saviour.

 

[steaver]

This is the question which I originally posed: Why do you disregard what the Church actually teaches and cling to what any number of confused, disobedient, or ignorant people profess to believe?

Herbert, are you one of these people also? You first told me the Church does not teach a person can reject Jesus Christ and be saved. But you continue to argue with me just the opposite.

 

[steaver]

No, you can read the words of Christ to them. You can share the Gospel. But you aren't Christ's personal Prophet. You don't speak on His behalf. The words of Scripture aren't yours to apply as you see fit. You don't have perfect knowledge. You can't judge the heart of another person conclusively one way or another. God alone is the only one who speaks with finality. Sure, you can say something like "Well, it appears as though that is an unsaved individual." or you could say to the person "I implore you to take this message to heart and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. For He is the Savior." But to take that next leap and say "That person who's walking away right now is going to Hell." it's just not your place to say such a thing. And it's not mine, either.

I do not have to be Jesus' prophet. God gave us the writings of Jesus' prophets so that we may understand the condition of those who reject Jesus Christ and those who gladly receive Him.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (John)

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha" (Paul).

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Jesus)

Herbert. If I witness Jesus Christ to a person and that person says "NO I do not believe". Guess what? I KNOW for a fact that person at that moment is under condemnation. Will they believe tomorrow? Maybe. But at the moment i spoke with them they were lost and I KNOW it. Simple as that.

.

 

[steaver]

Though we don't "earn" anything by them

Correct. Justification is through faith alone. The works justify the "said" faith.

 

[steaver]

Wait just one second here, you recently said this:

"I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification."

Now you're saying this:

"You will not find one "Faith Alone" believer that declares anyone who says they have faith are automatically saved just for saying so."
How exactly do you reconcile these statements?

I do not see a contradiction. You have to understand James. Faith alone justifies the soul/person. But it must be a faith evidenced by works and not just a "said" faith.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

James points to Abraham as the perfect example of true faith evidenced by works.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

"Made perfect" means "fulfilled". Abraham's works fulfilled Abraham's profession of faith. It is the faith which justifies the soul. It is the works which justifies the "said" faith. Otherwise, a "said" faith without the evidence of works is a dead faith, being alone, can this kind of faith save?

NOW......"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

 

[steaver]

What it sounds like you're telling me is that the "true definition" of "faith alone" is actually "faith not alone." In other words, you call it "faith alone" but insist that it's not faith alone. Then when someone points this out to you you say that he "doesn't understand" what "faith alone" really means.

I believe the reason James confuses many people is because they do not distinguish between justification of the soul and justification of the profession. All James is doing is explaining how true faith in Jesus Christ is evidenced by having good works. In context, if you take in the entire passage you should see it is clear that James is speaking of a man's profession being justified by the good works. You yourself said the works do not earn a man justification.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

 

[Yeshua1]

That would be nice if scripture said what you say, can you please show us that exact verse?

Instead scripture says:

1 Timothy 3

15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

2 Corinthians 3

2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.



Written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God <--That is holy scripture.


7But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones,


12Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,




Look you got better chance to make up a new doctrine called "SOLA ENDURANCE ALONE".

James 1

4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.


PERFECT, COMPLETE, lacking in NOTHING.


I would be stumped.


But sola scriptura? NOPE not even an inch of indication. Not even a whiff of it being the "sole and only".


A long long time ago someone corrected you with scripture and POP, you figure that must be the rule.

Jesus stated that we live by the words of God, and he got really upset when the Pharisees made their man made up doctrines equal to those of God, same thing RCC does!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.