Love Alone Saves

[MennoSota]

"God tells us that no one will come to God"

No one comes to Pizza without God's grace.

That doesn't mean I can't eat Pizza.

Your idea of God would leave an infant on the highway on purpose and for his selfish glory.
He is a sick, evil, selfish, megalomaniac.

I'm starting to think you like him just cause he makes everyone look better.

The United States is not in rebellion with China. We would actually have to be citizens and part of China to rebel against China.

So if you want to insist that we are in rebellion God, then that indicates we were not rebellion at the start, we at one time full citizens with full rights and access to not sin, ie elect.

Foolish analogy with no merit, utilyan. Do you want to try again or just slink away...

 

[Yeshua1]

Foolish analogy with no merit, utilyan. Do you want to try again or just slink away...

He cannot argue from scriptures, nor make good puns!

 

[steaver]

This is love. Not that we chose God, but that God chose us.

What verse is this?

 

[MennoSota]

What verse is this?

1 John 4:10

 

[steaver]

1 John 4:10

Ah, kinda changed it up there. lol.

10 "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins".

I thought that was the one you was thinking of, but it didn't say "chose".

 

[herbert]

It's no more authoritative than the discussion you and I are having. You just ascribe authority where you will, but you have no scripture to support it. The lack of biblical support for the many claims of Rome is striking.

"Mennosota,"

If you're interested in speaking directly to a particular doctrinal issue, please begin reading at the following link and continue until you've identified something I've got wrong then bring it to my attention: Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Because here you are, before we've even had a chance to exchange even an idea or two, and you're presuming a number of things about my position(s). You're also claiming that I have "no scripture" to support my view(s).

Again, I'd recommend reading the first conversation I participated in here a while back (at the link above) to find something specific that I've misunderstood. Then come back to explain and explain exactly how I'm confused.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[herbert]

I do this because i have learned over the past twenty years of conversation with folks from all types of sects that if you want to really know what a group is teaching you have to go directly to the followers to see what they are getting out of their leadership.

Isn't that a bit like saying, if you want to know what a country's laws are, you need to go out into the roughest part of town and observe the behavior of the citizens? Such an idea seems to me to be patently false. Do I watch speeding cars to determine what the speed limit is? Or do I look for the little white sign on the side of the road?

It doesn't matter if it is JW's. Mormons, SDA's, Catholics, Baptist, etc. If you want to know what their church is actually teaching then ask the followers what they believe.

Again, that's like saying "It doesn't matter if it's Dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster, if you want to know what the dictionary actually says, you've got to review the way a typical person on the street spells."

You tell me, where is Adonia and Utilyan getting this belief that one can reject Jesus Christ and still be saved? From the Pope's comments? Their own local church's bishop? Why do they believe this way as Catholics? I always thought that Catholics towed the line. Maybe they are just repeating what they have been taught because they do not seem to react to Scripture when shown, they just ignore it.

Hmmm. I wonder if your statement here would qualify as libel. For neither utilyan or Adonia believe that one can "reject Jesus Christ and still be saved..." To say such things about fellow Christians is anything but charitable. Both utilyan and Adonia believe that there is only one way to Heaven, and that is through Christ. So whoever ends up receiving that reward will have gotten there through Christ. I am confident that I am speaking accurately based upon my previous interaction with each of them here on this website. And I ask that, if either of you are reading this, if I've misrepresented you, would you please clarify?

Finally, when one disagrees with someone concerning the meaning of a passage of Scripture, such disagreement should not be confused with ignorance or dismissal on the part of the person with whom one disagrees. For it is very likely that "Scriptural interpretation" (according to respective traditions) has more to do with the disagreement than neglect, dismissal, or ignorance on the part of either party.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[MennoSota]

"Mennosota,"

If you're interested in speaking directly to a particular doctrinal issue, please begin reading at the following link and continue until you've identified something I've got wrong then bring it to my attention: Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Because here you are, before we've even had a chance to exchange even an idea or two, and you're presuming a number of things about my position(s). You're also claiming that I have "no scripture" to support my view(s).

Again, I'd recommend reading the first conversation I participated in here a while back (at the link above) to find something specific that I've misunderstood. Then come back to explain and explain exactly how I'm confused.

In Him,

Herbert

Is the document any more authoritative than the discussion we are having? The answer is clearly....No.

 

[MennoSota]

Ah, kinda changed it up there. lol.

10 "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins".

I thought that was the one you was thinking of, but it didn't say "chose".

Is there a difference? We didn't choose to love God. God chose to love us. That's God's love. Despite having nothing worthy of God's love...God still chooses. Despite the fact that we do not choose to love God...God still chooses to love us. That's love, steaver.

 

[herbert]

Is the document any more authoritative than the discussion we are having? The answer is clearly....No.

"MennoSota,"

I am not sure where you're going with this. You said: "You just ascribe authority where you will, but you have no scripture to support it. The lack of biblical support for the many claims of Rome is striking."

In other words, you are:

1. Stating something about me (and my ascription of authority) without providing any substantiation for it whatsoever.
2. Simply declaring that I have no Scripture to support my opinion.
3. Making a rather indirect comment concerning your point of view concerning the claims of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Then, when I ask you to specifically identify a problem in anything I've written you point out the fact that nothing in my previous conversation is authoritative. Well, as I see it, that's not the point. I am asking you to tell me where I've erred in order to set my understanding straight. In other words, the point here isn't how unauthoritative my previous conversation is. The point is that you, apparently, have the "right" position (as far as Christian belief is concerned) while I have the "wrong" one... And I am asking you to explain to me where I've gone wrong. If you're not willing to do this, why did you take the time to criticize my beliefs (points 1 & 2 above)?

In Him,

Herbert

 

[MennoSota]

"MennoSota,"

I am not sure where you're going with this. You said: "You just ascribe authority where you will, but you have no scripture to support it. The lack of biblical support for the many claims of Rome is striking."

In other words, you are:

1. Stating something about me (and my ascription of authority) without providing any substantiation for it whatsoever.
2. Simply declaring that I have no Scripture to support my opinion.
3. Making a rather indirect comment concerning your point of view concerning the claims of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Then, when I ask you to specifically identify a problem in anything I've written you point out the fact that nothing in my previous conversation is authoritative. Well, as I see it, that's not the point. I am asking you to tell me where I've erred in order to set my understanding straight. In other words, the point here isn't how unauthoritative my previous conversation is. The point is that you, apparently, have the "right" position (as far as Christian belief is concerned) while I have the "wrong" one... And I am asking you to explain to me where I've gone wrong. If you're not willing to do this, why did you take the time to criticize my beliefs (points 1 & 2 above)?

In Him,

Herbert

I ascribe authority to God's word. I trust God to teach me His word and apply it to my life. I read commentaries only to see if what I read in God's word is also what others have read. If I am interpreting some passage in a way that no one else does, then it's likely that I am wrong. I will therefore need to more closely observe the passage to discern what I may have missed. This is what the Bereans are commended for. All I ask from you is to place God's word over the flawed commentaries of Roman church scholars. Can you do that?

 

[herbert]

All I ask from you is to place God's word over the flawed commentaries of Roman church scholars.

"MennoSota,"

You've asked of me something similar to the following:
"All I ask is that you stop kicking your dog."

In other words, your request presumes guilt on the part of some party (In this case both me and "Roman church scholars"). Further, it presumes that I place something over and above the very Word of God (something which I'd most enthusiastically deny). So your presentation, again, presumes various things about me and my views, things which are, incidentally, quite absurd. For the record, I don't:

1. Place anything above the Word of God.
2. Allow mere "commentaries" of "Roman church scholars" to twist, warp, or otherwise invalidate the true meaning of Holy Scripture.

Again, your comments presume my guilt on many counts. And all of this before you've so much as frankly asked a question of me or clearly and directly pointed out a misunderstanding on my part.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[MennoSota]

"MennoSota,"

You've asked of me something similar to the following:
"All I ask is that you stop kicking your dog."

In other words, your request presumes guilt on the part of some party (In this case both me and "Roman church scholars"). Further, it presumes that I place something over and above the very Word of God (something which I'd most enthusiastically deny). So your presentation, again, presumes various things about me and my views, things which are, incidentally, quite absurd. For the record, I don't:

1. Place anything above the Word of God.
2. Allow mere "commentaries" of "Roman church scholars" to twist, warp, or otherwise invalidate the true meaning of Holy Scripture.

Again, your comments presume my guilt on many counts. And all of this before you've so much as frankly asked a question of me or clearly and directly pointed out a misunderstanding on my part.

In Him,

Herbert

Herbie, you are being purposefully dense.

I am asking you to be an objective reader of God's word without being biased by commentators. You refuse to do this, which means you can not make a cogent argument outside of what your commentators tell you.

You can neither determine if something is right nor if it is wrong because you cannot grasp God's word without someone telling you what to think.

That is terribly sad, Herbie. Living in a perpetual world of 1984.

 

[herbert]

Herbie, you are being purposefully dense.

Another assertion about me, my views, or my approach to conversation. Also, why are you calling me "Herbie"?

All I ask of you is to point out something "specific" which I've got wrong and explain to me how it is I've erred and how you know such to be the case.

I am asking you to be an objective reader of God's word without being biased by commentators. You refuse to do this, which means you can not make a cogent argument outside of what your commentators tell you.

I do indeed accept what God says. What have I said which indicates to you that I have "refused" to do this? Please point out the actual word or phrase which indicates my unwillingness to be an "objective reader of God's word."

You can neither determine if something is right nor if it is wrong because you cannot grasp God's word without someone telling you what to think.

That is terribly sad, Herbie. Living in a perpetual world of 1984.

How can you presume to know what I can or cannot grasp based upon our short interaction here? Also, why is it that you're choosing to refer to me as "Herbie"?

Finally, if you'd simply point out something I've actually said which demonstrates my confusion... and then provide redirection, our conversation might be beneficial to me. At this point, I feel like you're just out to pick on me, like some intellectual playground bully.

Tell me, do you wish to offer me your insight or not?

In Him,

Herbert

 

[MennoSota]

Another assertion about me, my views, or my approach to conversation. Also, why are you calling me "Herbie"?

All I ask of you is to point out something "specific" which I've got wrong and explain to me how it is I've erred and how you know such to be the case.



I do indeed accept what God says. What have I said which indicates to you that I have "refused" to do this? Please point out the actual word or phrase which indicates my unwillingness to be an "objective reader of God's word."



How can you presume to know what I can or cannot grasp based upon our short interaction here? Also, why is it that you're choosing to refer to me as "Herbie"?

Finally, if you'd simply point out something I've actually said which demonstrates my confusion... and then provide redirection, our conversation might be beneficial to me. At this point, I feel like you're just out to pick on me, like some intellectual playground bully.

Tell me, do you wish to offer me your insight or not?

In Him,

Herbert

So...when the papacy is wrong and contrary to the Bible...you will admit it and say they are wrong?

Indulgences are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Infant baptism is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Mary as a perpetual virgin is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Relics as a superstituous means of healing is nowhere to be found in the bible.
Sainthood by virtue of signs after death is nowhere to be found in the bible.
Grace given via communion is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Peter as the first pope is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
The church of Rome as the universal church is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Etc...

There you go Herbie. The list could go on. Now...go to your priests and have them tell you what to say so you don't say something they will not approve or goes against their traditions.

 

[Adonia]

Here is a good example Herbert.

Adonia declares the RCC is teaching salvation through loving thy neighbour with no acceptance of Jesus Christ needed. I have to wonder where he is getting this, if he believes the RCC is teaching this.

I said no such thing, instead I said quite the opposite. Here is what I said: "The Church preaches salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and I believe the same, but it also recognizes the ultimate authority of God and His infinite mercy". Now don't even try to twist those words, they are as clear as a bell.

 

[Adonia]

But are you not Catholic? Are you saying your Catholic's position on salvation is wrong? If so, why do you stay Catholic?

And you say you get this from reading scripture, what about this scripture....

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

The Scriptures say many things.

 

[Adonia]

No, you have provided church dogma, which comes from tradition, not biblical truth. There is a vast difference, despite your objection.
The interpretation of the Roman church is often closer to Mormons, Jehovah's Witness and other cults than it is to God's word. This is the reason Luther called for an honest dialogue within the church of Rome. The result was a prideful continuance of false teaching and yet another attempt to kill anyone who dared to question the authority of a political entity of flawed men.

I hate to bust your bubble, but your interpretation of the Scriptures is not the be all and end all for all Christendom. Yours is but one voice of many and I would strongly advise others to take your biblical "acumen" with a grain of salt.

 

[Adonia]

"Mennosota,"

If you're interested in speaking directly to a particular doctrinal issue, please begin reading at the following link and continue until you've identified something I've got wrong then bring it to my attention: Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Because here you are, before we've even had a chance to exchange even an idea or two, and you're presuming a number of things about my position(s). You're also claiming that I have "no scripture" to support my view(s).

Again, I'd recommend reading the first conversation I participated in here a while back (at the link above) to find something specific that I've misunderstood. Then come back to explain and explain exactly how I'm confused.

In Him,

Herbert

That's what happens here all the time. According to these folks posting here, your scriptural examples of Catholic teachings hold no water. They are right and we are wrong and can never be right no matter how many times we cite the Scriptures and the long historical record of the orthodox Christian experience.

 

[MennoSota]

I hate to bust your bubble, but your interpretation of the Scriptures is not the be all and end all for all Christendom. Yours is but one voice of many and I would strongly advise others to take your biblical "acumen" with a grain of salt.

Of course it's not. But, I am always studying to understand and make those changes that come through inductive Bible study. Observe, Question, Interpret, check with others to see what they say, Apply, go back to observe again, etc.

What I don't do is accept one set of commentaries as the only valid set of commentaries. The commentaries could be wrong. Therefore I test them against scripture.

I also strongly advise that you not follow the commentary of a liberation theology, marxist, priest who currently leads the Roman church.