Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[DHK]

What I've said to DHK elsewhere becomes apparent at this point in the conversation: Sola Scriptura is not a principle by which unity might be reached for it assures one of his rightness when he's right and it assures him of his rightness when he's wrong, as well.

Let's take a good honest look at this statement.
First, no person or organization, including the RCC or the Baptists can claim infallibility on all things. Perhaps that is what turned you off in the first place.

If the RCC claims infallibility then they are condemned and deluded.

They also go contrary to the Scriptures.

Here is what the Bible says about claiming infallibility:
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--It is the RCC that claims their own private interpretation that all shall follow. That takes away the duty of others both to study and to draw their own conclusions as per the command in 2Tim.2:15.

Infallibility assumes a position of sinlessness.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

If one is never wrong it is the same as saying they have never sinned is it not?
With that admission, it is the same as saying:
that one has deceived themselves, the truth is not in them, they make Christ a liar, and His word is not in them.
To claim infallibility has serious consequences.

We all are fallible. No one is perfect. No two men believe exactly the same on all things.
Sola scriptura allows man, made in the image of God, to study and use the mind and intellect that God has given to man to come to his own conclusions as he believes.

Baptists have always fought for this basic principle for soul liberty, tolerance, or freedom of religion. It is a basic human right--both within and without the churches.

Man was never intended to be a submissive mindless being with no ability to think for him or herself. But that is how the RCC organization is set up. The members of the RCC are not allowed to interpret the Bible. The priest must do it for them. Everything is set out for them. "No thinking allowed."

Look what Paul said here:
(KJV) For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Now "heresy" had a different meaning 400 years ago. It meant divisive.
Weymouth has a very good translation here:

(WNT) For there must of necessity be differences of opinion among you, in order that it may be plainly seen who are the men of sterling worth among you.
--Obviously there was no "Deposit of Faith" as the Catholics define it, no RCC Catechism, etc. There were differences of opinion. Paul said it was a good thing, not a bad thing. By teaching and comparing scripture to scripture, those "approved" or "men of worth" would be plainly seen among the members.

 

[utilyan]

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

In this debate I know my position is the correct one. I set forth my arguments to prove it to be correct. But there is no circular reasoning here.
It would be the same type of reasoning as you trying to convince a J.W. that the trinity is true. You lay out the reasons why. You also assume that his position is wrong. Is that "begging the question"? When one is convinced of the truth he proclaims the truth.

My proclamation of the truth is not begging the question. And yet every statement that I give as evidence to my premise or support of sola scriptura you simply brush off as "begging the question." That is not true.

If one had a more neutral question then begging the question would apply, but the question is not even objective nor neutral. As I explained before, the position of sola scriptura stands alone and apart from all other cults (and I don't mean to be offensive).
RCC: Bibe + Oral Tradition.
J.W.: Bible + writings of Charles Taze Russell
Mormons: Bible + Book of Mormon
SDA: Bible + Great Controversy and other writings by EGW
other cults: Bible + their own writings.
--We have the Bible as our only authority, i.e., sola scriptura.

The Bible is very clear about adding to the Scripture. It gives such warnings in Deuteronomy, in various passages in the prophets, and last of all in the Book of Revelation as it closes the Canon of Scripture:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Adding to God's Word, even in the form of Oral Tradition, brings a curse upon those that do.
We are to use only the scriptures that God has revealed unto us.

This is not begging the question. This is presenting the evidence that is set before us.

"--We have the Bible as our only authority, i.e., sola scriptura."


No sir you have ANGLICAN CHURCH who Authorized the King James version bible FOR YOU.

Else quaran, book of Mormon, writings of elleng G white. Is all fair game. Someone has to identify the bible.




Its not a KING JESUS bible.......its a KING JAMES.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you let me know where I contradicted myself, I could attempt to either clarify or acknowledge my problem. All I was attempting to acknowledge there was the idea that it is appropriate that we allow the clear passages to shed light on the less clear passages. I wasn't saying anything other than that.

If you read through your post, you'll find it. It was probably just a typo. It doesn't matter.

You're attempting to find a way to make one precede another. But does the heads precede the tails? Inherent to real faith are the works of charity which cannot be separated according to some intellectual abstraction. Consider this perspective. Or this one.

You are missing the point. Abraham trusted in God and it was credited to him as righteousness in Genesis 15:6. The works cited by James 2:21 came up to 25 years later (Genesis 22). God declared Abraham righteous in Gen. 15:6. Abraham's works declared him to be righteous in Gen. 22. Our works are the evidence that we are saved by faith. Justification is by grace alone through faith. But God doesn't leave us where He finds us. His work of sanctification in the life of the believer leads us to good works and acts of righteousness. [BTW, I tend not to read links. Your posts are long enough as it is! If you want me to read something, cut and paste it, please]

You may not accept the position of Catholics in this regard. But it is consistent, reasonable, and consistent with the Scriptures. Since I cannot direct to you non-reference apologetical works b/c of the forum's restrictions, I will try to represent what Catholic writers say in response to an interpretation such as yours to James 2:24:

Catholics see two categories with regard to faith:
1) The faith of Galations 5:6- St. Paul's faith working through charity or "faith formed by charity" according to the phrasing of some writers.
2) There's also faith which is not formed by charity. James 2:19, for example, would be an example of faith NOT formed by charity.

There is true faith, which will always lead to action. If I tell you that tomorrow Walmart are giving away $1 bills for a dime each, what will be the evidence that you believe me? Surely it will be that you will turn up at Walmart with a barrow-load of dimes. Your faith (misplaced in this instance, I'm afraid) will lead you to action. If you say, "Yes, Martin, I believe you," and then do nothing, what sort of faith would that be? It would be a James 2:19 sort of faith. But you wouldn't go to Walmart before you believed me. The faith must come first and then the action.

Therefore, with certain qualifications, a Catholic can say we're saved by faith (That is, as long as the faith referred to isn't divorced from Christ's charity).

Yes, I know that Roman Catholics believe that faith comes into it somewhere. But salvation is by faith ALONE.

In order to really engage the Catholic position, you'll have to demonstrate that these two categories I've presented are themselves illegitimate for some reason or another. This, as I see it, will be impossible to do in light of Matthew 25:31-46 and 1st Corinthians 13:2 and other verses. For where a Catholic can reconcile those verses with Ephesians 2:8-9 as well as James 2:24, one who demands that faith alone is how things are done cannot do so without doing what you're doing: Denying the bald pronouncement of James 2:24.

Well I've already done it. Please look at my post #239, not to mention what I've posted here. We are saved UNTO good works (Ephesians 2:10), not BY good works. But tell me what this means: 'Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness' (Romans 4:4-5), just as Abraham's was.

You're building your theology around the chronological arrangement of things, instead of the charity that is in one's heart. If a person, again, were tied down and in love with his wife but unable to hug her, would it really do to get all legalistic and quibbly over the fact that the love in his heart "precedes" the hug? Would that make sense to build your understanding of human love according not to one's status in Christ and instead according to the particular incidental circumstances of his situation?

Chronology is fundamental. faith comes first; then works. This is the whole basis of Paul's teaching. In Romans 1-8, he lays out the doctrine of Justification by faith Alone. Then he has a brief excursus concerning Israel. Then in Chapters 12-15, he lays out how the Christian is to live in the light of his salvation by faith alone. It's really very simple and straightforward.

Notice how you just tracked back chronologically from an acknowledgment of the fact that we'll be judged by our works to the saving faith which preceded them. Again, instead of basing your soteriology upon the importance of whether or not someone is "in Christ" you've built up a complex and disjointed Biblical equation which interprets into meaninglessness some verses so that you may affirm your preferred doctrine. Therefore, the "judgment" you acknowledge is nothing more than symbolic. So you're payig lip service to the Biblical notion of being judged by your works despite the fact that you've adopted a complex theology to deny that very reality made so poignant by Christ himself in Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 22:12 and reiterated by St. Paul in Romans 2:5-11.

I absolutely deny that. If you were once a Baptist, surely you must have some understanding of what I'm saying? God's elect will be saved. 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus......' But those who are in Christ Jesus have been born again by the Spirit of God. They are no longer the people that they were. They are those '.......who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit' (Romans 8:1). But of course the Church of Rome messes all this up by teaching that one is born again as a tiny baby in one's 'baptism.'

Again, without a principle by which human opinion may be distinguished from divine revelation, there is nothing that can reconcile our two views. Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Church for just that purpose. So to consider my reading as eisegesis and yours as exegesis is to beg the question. For you're presuming the validity of Sola Fide (and Sola Scriptura) in order to justify the conclusions you've reached which you set at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The 'unity' of the Church of Rome is based on the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs who opposed it down the centuries. Sola Fide is thoroughly Biblical, but to understand it you need to stop snatching at 'proof texts' like James 2:24, and get to grips with the context in order to understand what he's saying (see my post #239 again). Without Sola Scriptura we have nothing but the opinions of men to work on, backed up by the Inquisition. The Church of Rome's 'Apostolic Succession' is a sham. Some 'Popes' have been the most wicked of man; this is acknowledged even by Romanist historians. They were unfit to receive the 'Papacy' and unfit to pass it on.

When the Holy Roman Emperor Henry III came to Rome to be crowned by the 'Pope,' he actually found three of them squabbling amongst each other as to who was the real one- Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI. Henry deposed all three and then put his own man into the job- Clement II- who then crowned him. What right did he have to do that and who actually was the real 'Pope'?

What I've said to DHK elsewhere becomes apparent at this point in the conversation: Sola Scriptura is not a principle by which unity might be reached for it assures one of his rightness when he's right and it assures him of his rightness when he's wrong, as well.

Unity in the faith comes with truth. I attend Christian conferences with Presbyterians, evangelical Anglicans, Brethren and others and we have unity in the Lord Jesus Christ and His salvation. We don't need the sort of unity that you are proposing, thank you.

Herbert, I know I've been a bit aggressive in this post. You're obviously a very nice chap, and my attack here is not directed against you, but at the organization to which you're attached. I hope you understand that.

May I ask you; are you utterly confident that you are saved? If so, please explain why. Thank you.

 

[utilyan]

All needs to be done is said Faith Alone includes "Faith, Hope and Love."

But since folks are against Love, it will only qualify as a Demon's Faith.

Faith of Demons should not be supported.

This verse drives Satan nuts:

1 Corinthians 13
2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.


St. Augustine: “Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing;” Enchiridion 8



Best example FAITH ALONE is a joke. Is the REPLIES WE GET. The replies we get here are GOOD WORKS and acts of LOVE.

Faith Alone actually believing it, I wouldn't waste my time correcting you. I'd trust Jesus to take care of it. There is nothing you CAN DO, nothing I CAN DO......... Then I wouldn't bother convincing you of anything. Jesus fix it, would be my internal response.

Faith Aloners don't even walk the walk.

Anyone with a lick of common sense would flip Faith Alone inside out.


Read the bible? Reading the bible is a good work........nice nice.......how about no I just faith alone?

How about I just accept the Catholic faith........faith alone. Oh no you have to faith alone over here instead........No I don't faith alone is faith alone, I don't have to do jack.

If I a believer of FAITH ALONE for second thought I'd have to start a separate new faith let alone correct anyone.....The hypocrisy is I no longer actually believe in FAITH ALONE.

The second you respond for what motive you correct anyone? to "better" my chances? Your already self-convinced against "faith alone".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I know you hate to answer this, Utilyan,
BUT
How do you love someone you don't believe in?

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ comes first- then, having been saved by Him through faith alone, love and good works will follow (Ephesians 2:8-10). For it is Christ who saves us, and not our work, our love nor anything else.

'Not the labours of my hands
Can fulfil Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone:
Thou must save, and Thou alone.'

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.' [Augustus Toplady]

 

[steaver]

All needs to be done is said Faith Alone includes "Faith, Hope and Love."

But since folks are against Love, it will only qualify as a Demon's Faith.

Tell us why you are against the Faith part. Your doctrine is Love Alone.

I would be interested in knowing how you obey the command of Jesus to go out into the world and make disciples of Him without including Faith in Jesus Christ in your presentation.

Mark 16 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned".

 

[DHK]

All needs to be done is said Faith Alone includes "Faith, Hope and Love."

But since folks are against Love, it will only qualify as a Demon's Faith.

Faith of Demons should not be supported.

This verse drives Satan nuts:

1 Corinthians 13
2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.


St. Augustine: “Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing;” Enchiridion 8



Best example FAITH ALONE is a joke. Is the REPLIES WE GET. The replies we get here are GOOD WORKS and acts of LOVE.

Faith Alone actually believing it, I wouldn't waste my time correcting you. I'd trust Jesus to take care of it. There is nothing you CAN DO, nothing I CAN DO......... Then I wouldn't bother convincing you of anything. Jesus fix it, would be my internal response.

Faith Aloners don't even walk the walk.

Anyone with a lick of common sense would flip Faith Alone inside out.


Read the bible? Reading the bible is a good work........nice nice.......how about no I just faith alone?

How about I just accept the Catholic faith........faith alone. Oh no you have to faith alone over here instead........No I don't faith alone is faith alone, I don't have to do jack.

If I a believer of FAITH ALONE for second thought I'd have to start a separate new faith let alone correct anyone.....The hypocrisy is I no longer actually believe in FAITH ALONE.

The second you respond for what motive you correct anyone? to "better" my chances? Your already self-convinced against "faith alone".

Let me tell you about Faith, Hope and Love.

Where I live tonight is the last night our professional hockey team is playing in "The Coliseum" the great arena where they have been playing hockey since the '70's. It will be re-purposed and the team is moving to a new one in the fall. All day today memories have been flowing in on the radio about the great days that were spent there--their love for their team, the arena, the game, etc. The outpouring of love has been astonishing. I have never seen anything like it before.

"The Coliseum" has been referred to as a "Cathedral," a "church," even a place of worship, and those that attend as a congregation, a family. Outside is a large bronze statue of a famous player that used to play there. Many of the former players are their heroes, their idols, as are some of the present ones (though they be multi-millionaires).
Some stand outside the hotels the alumni are staying in hoping to get their autographs. At the last game to be played tonight they will be sure to be seeking their autographs wherever they can find them. What an outpouring of love!

As for hope. There is a great anticipation or hope for a better season next year in a brand new arena, a state of the art building unlike any other that has been built. This brings hope to the dedicated believers.

These believers have faith, even though their team did not do very well and haven't for some time, they have faith in better things to come now. They have faith in their player in their team as they move forward to next year with new additions in a new arena.

But will that faith, hope, and love get them to heaven?
Not a chance!
It is all misplaced.

Love is in a thing, not a person.
Their Hope is in an intangible.
Their faith is in a group of fallible men who probably still have a good chance of failure.

The only person that can save is Christ whose promises are sure and true. Faith alone can save.
The object of our faith is what is important. If the object of our faith is not Christ, then there is no chance of being saved. Hope and love follow faith in Christ.

 

[utilyan]

I know you hate to answer this, Utilyan,
BUT
How do you love someone you don't believe in?

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ comes first- then, having been saved by Him through faith alone, love and good works will follow (Ephesians 2:8-10). For it is Christ who saves us, and not our work, our love nor anything else.

'Not the labours of my hands
Can fulfil Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone:
Thou must save, and Thou alone.'

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.' [Augustus Toplady]

I love answering the question.

The question is answered in scripture.

1 john 4

20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

You want to work with loving God first setting capability of loving others. This scripture could have been written so, it is not. It is precisely contrary to your belief.

 

[utilyan]

Tell us why you are against the Faith part. Your doctrine is Love Alone.

I would be interested in knowing how you obey the command of Jesus to go out into the world and make disciples of Him without including Faith in Jesus Christ in your presentation.

Mark 16 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned".

I am not against faith, I'm just against FAITH ALONE.

Steaver the following might not apply to you, unless you think faith by itself only, ie alone.

Galatians 5
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.


We Christians simply say:
1 Corinthians 13
13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.


If THIS STATEMENT True? If its not broke why fix it? He doesn't sound anything like you do.

I say AMEN to what is PERFECTLY stated in the BIBLE. He sounds exactly like us.


What THEY are saying is
But now faith, hope, love abide in Faith ALONE, the greatest is Faith.


^This statement above is NOT found in scripture. Show it to me. Show me where it says FAITH ALONE.


The one place it tells you FAITH ALONE.
James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[DHK]

^This statement above is NOT found in scripture. Show it to me. Show me where it says FAITH ALONE.


The one place it tells you FAITH ALONE.
James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

This statement has already been answered.
Not all scripture must be worded exactly the way the reader wants it to be. Just because it is not the way you want it to be does not mean that "faith alone" is not taught."

Please sit in this chair, in this chair alone, in no other chair but this only chair!.
Isn't "Please sit in "this chair," enough for you to understand what is meant? Why do you need extra clarification?

Is the meaning here not obvious to you and others?

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God (Rom.5:1).
Does it have to say "faith and faith alone," or is the meaning clear enough without the extra added clarification that you seem to demand of God.

 

[utilyan]

This statement has already been answered.
Not all scripture must be worded exactly the way the reader wants it to be. Just because it is not the way you want it to be does not mean that "faith alone" is not taught."

Please sit in this chair, in this chair alone, in no other chair but this only chair!.
Isn't "Please sit in "this chair," enough for you to understand what is meant? Why do you need extra clarification?

Is the meaning here not obvious to you and others?

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God (Rom.5:1).
Does it have to say "faith and faith alone," or is the meaning clear enough without the extra added clarification that you seem to demand of God.

Its pretty simple. Scripture IS worded exactly the way I want it to be.


1 Corinthians 13
13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.


Is this statement true or not? If this means abide in faith alone, I agree on the inclusion of love.


For your chair analogy, The extra clarification I need is "THIS chair has love".

 

[DHK]

Its pretty simple. Scripture IS worded exactly the way I want it to be.


1 Corinthians 13
13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.


Is this statement true or not? If this means abide in faith alone, I agree on the inclusion of love.


For your chair analogy, The extra clarification I need is "THIS chair has love".

Ha Ha. My chair has upholstery, not love. Depending on which one you get, you might feel some springs also. What kind of inanimate object has "love"?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I asked, how do you love someone you don't believe in.

I love answering the question.

The question is answered in scripture.

1 john 4

20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

You want to work with loving God first setting capability of loving others. This scripture could have been written so, it is not. It is precisely contrary to your belief.

You didn't answer the question and your final paragraph actually makes no sense.
So I ask again, how do you love someone you don't believe in?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

I am going to be tied up for the next few days so I wanted to get this in yet tonight. Pardon me for my upcoming absence. God willing, I'll be back, though!

No problem. have a good time doing whatever you're doing

I know that people seek various assurances. Such assurances led John Calvin, for example to come up with a very rigid, consistent, and systematic theological system. The Catholic Church avoids such things. The Church certainly upholds principles. But oftentimes, the Church stops short of attempting to apply them. For such is God's role.

I am neither a Presbyterian nor a paedo-Baptist, so I am by no means an unqualified fan of Calvin. However, God is a God of order, not disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33) so I expect to find His ways to be consistent and systematic.

In this case, it seems as though you're presenting things in zero-sum terms. To present something in zero-sum terms without having first demonstrated the zero-sum conditions of the situation is to commit a logical fallacy. I reject your Either-Or fallacy. For in God's economy, things more often operate according to a Both-And dynamic.

So what you're saying is that salvation can be either all of grace or partly of grace and yet still be all of grace? Well I think that's either completely crazy or partly crazy, yet still completely crazy.

Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation, which provides a good case in point for my position. In the case of Christ's Mother, Mary, the Angel Gabriel came and announced the plan God had in store for her. She responded, saying "Let it be done unto me according to your word." In other words, Mary said "yes" to God. For God wouldn't force Himself upon Mary. She co-operated with God. Can she "boast" for having done so? By no means. But did she really and actually express her will in harmony with the Divine will? Most definitely! Amen.

Gabriel didn't ask Mary's permission- he told her what was going to happen (Luke 1:31). Do you think that God's will can be frustrated by the creature. Go and ask Jonah!

Similarly, we can participate in something that is already perfect when we are encountering a non-zero-sum situation. For it is according to the gracious participation in the divine life of God by which St. Paul wrote the following: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church..." It is only according to a non-zero-sum theology that such a statement can make any sense. We know that there was nothing lacking in the perfect sufferings of Christ. Still, by grace, St. Paul offers his sufferings up for the sake of the body.

That is because you don't understand what Paul is saying. Christ's sufferings on the cross are indeed complete, but there is still more suffering to come (eg. Luke 22:12-19; Philippians 1:29), of which Paul's were a part.

I am obviously not a scholar. I've never been to seminary. I can't read Greek. I can speak to you as a man, though.

I am neither a scholar nor a Pastor.

I have a family, thank God. I have been with my wife for 23 years. We have five children. We don't do things "alone."

I think I may be a little older than you. I have been married for 36 years. We don't do things "alone" either, but God does (eg. Isaiah 45:21-22).

I still say that the word "help" shouldn't be a sticking point in light of the fact that nothing demands or requires that it be interpreted the way you seem to be interpreting it. Further, the Pelagian heresy was put down by the Catholic Church a long, long time ago. Check out what Canons 5 and 6 from the Council of Orange (AD 529) say and see if they put your concerns with the word "help" to rest:

Pelagianism within the Church of Rome continued long after the Council of Orange. Check out the teaching of William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, known as the via moderna. It was opposed by Thomas Bradwardine, the 'Reformation Candle,' and, of course, by John Wyclif.

It was Christ who said "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." The Church, according to her apostolic faith, guards what was entrusted to her according to the power of the Holy Spirit. So it is that the Church teaches that which Christ taught.

That is because the Church of Rome does not understand the teaching of our Lord in John 6. One has to understand the context all the way from verse 22. I will try to post something on it.

Martin, this is what I'd consider to be an old canard. There is one sacrifice of Calvary. And just as that one Sacrifice is everpresent before the Father (Revelation 5), so is it made present for the sake of the Church. It is the one and only pure offering (Malachi 1:11), re-presented here in time. Christ is not resacrificed. That is not at all what the Church actually teaches, nor does it logically follow from any of the Church's doctrines.

'While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man- not once, but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest's command.' 'Father' John O'Brien, 'The Faith of Millions', Page 256.

Priests were called "presbyters" in the New Testament. For example, if you'd like to see an example of one of the seven sacraments being offered in the New Testament, read this: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters (priests) of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:14-15)

'Presbyter' comes from the Greek, meaning an older man. It is logically translated 'elder.' The Greek word for a priest is hiereus. If you look at the functions of Presbyters in the N.T. you will see that they are pretty much identical to that of the episkopos, or 'overseer.' Nowhere in the James 5 periscope, nor anywhere else in the Bible, will you find the term 'sacrament.'

God bless, Martin-

Herbert

And may God bless you too, Herbert.

 

[utilyan]

I asked, how do you love someone you don't believe in.

You didn't answer the question and your final paragraph actually makes no sense.
So I ask again, how do you love someone you don't believe in?

Martin I don't know your family. I love them anyways. Do I believe they exist?

I love the GOOD Samaritan. I love the Prodigal Son, the Father and the Elder brother too. Do they exist?

Atheism is a NEW problem, ancient times "believe" is a packaged word having to do with obedience.

Jesus Christ states believe in me in front of peoples faces. His existence isn't what is in question.


You believe Jesus Christ exists, That's great, Even Satan believes Jesus Christ exists.

James 2
19You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

James is talking exactly just like us. What is the point he trying to drive through here?

The very next verse! again sounds exactly as we do:

20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Well answer the man! Tell him NO, James Faith without works is not useless.

Why is this a foolish fellow? This foolish fellow believes in GOD.

Yes sentences that are next to each other.......MAYBE have to do with each other.

You have more weight in what you say if you could answer James "no i'm not willing to recognize that faith without works is useless, because faith alone is not useless.


I Take what he says and it works in perfect harmony with what Paul says concerning works of the law.

Romans 3
27Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law

Notice he doesn't say no law is in play, points out the existence of Law of FAITH.


Romans 2
5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

If it were your way, We would tell Paul its not because I'm stubborn or unrepentant Its faith alone.



I don't have to cross out bible verses or give some insane explanation. Especially a explanation that spells out the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is said. That's crazy.


I am absolutely happy, thrilled this bible verse says:

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You couldn't swallow it? Oh what he means the EXACT opposite.

You see that a man is justified by FAITH ALONE and not by works.


Seriously the exact opposite!?


Had the shoe been on the other foot you would be ramming those verses at us continuously.

I think its hilarious you even have to sell the idea the disciples were so stupid they would write in the exact opposite.

Luther when he invented your "faith alone" later realized his blunder, He wrote in "faith alone" and wanted JAMES out the bible.

Hmmmmm........why do you suppose he wants it out the bible?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin I don't know your family. I love them anyways. Do I believe they exist?

How do you love them? I might be an orphan bachelor for all you know. I'm not aware that you have sent them any food parcels or improving tracts. When my wife was ill recently, I don't recall that you visited her or sent her flowers. My family could all be starving, or I might be beating them black and blue every day and you wouldn't know. You can't be praying for my family because you don't know anything about it, how many children I've got, whether my mother is still living- you know nothing about it. With respect, that's just meaningless verbiage. Love is not a matter of words (1 John 3:18), nor is it a gooey gushy feeling (James 2:15-16). Get real!

Atheism is a NEW problem, ancient times "believe" is a packaged word having to do with obedience.

Jesus Christ states believe in me in front of peoples faces. His existence isn't what is in question.


You believe Jesus Christ exists, That's great, Even Satan believes Jesus Christ exists.

John 8:24. 'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.'
1. Our Lord does not say, 'Unless you love me an unspecified amount you will die in your sins.'
2. It's not a question of believing that He exists. It is believing that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Lord God Almighty (John 20:28) and coming to Him in repentance and faith (John 14:6; Mark 1:15), trusting in His blood shed upon the cross to save you.

You have to be able to reconcile James 2:24 with all the other verses that teach justification by faith alone, like Romans 4:4-5, for the Scriptures cannot contradict each other. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say on the matter.

 

[steaver]

I am not against faith, I'm just against FAITH ALONE.

All of your post oppose Faith in Jesus Christ altogether. Show me one post of yours where you said faith in Jesus Christ is needed for salvation, just one. You can't do it. You consider faith in the blood of Christ an unholy thing.

Simple test; Do you believe a person can hear and reject Jesus is Lord and Christ and still be saved?

 

[utilyan]

How do you love them? I might be an orphan bachelor for all you know. I'm not aware that you have sent them any food parcels or improving tracts. When my wife was ill recently, I don't recall that you visited her or sent her flowers. My family could all be starving, or I might be beating them black and blue every day and you wouldn't know. You can't be praying for my family because you don't know anything about it, how many children I've got, whether my mother is still living- you know nothing about it. With respect, that's just meaningless verbiage. Love is not a matter of words (1 John 3:18), nor is it a gooey gushy feeling (James 2:15-16). Get real!


John 8:24. 'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.'
1. Our Lord does not say, 'Unless you love me an unspecified amount you will die in your sins.'
2. It's not a question of believing that He exists. It is believing that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Lord God Almighty (John 20:28) and coming to Him in repentance and faith (John 14:6; Mark 1:15), trusting in His blood shed upon the cross to save you.

You have to be able to reconcile James 2:24 with all the other verses that teach justification by faith alone, like Romans 4:4-5, for the Scriptures cannot contradict each other. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say on the matter.

When I state love it is AGAPE. Its not the "gushy feelings". Maybe that's part of the problem, do you know what Agape is?


I only have to read JAMES 2:24 it LIKE IT SAYS to be harmonious with scripture.

Martin Luther, the INVENTOR of Faith Alone wanted reconcile James 2:24 off the bible.

Without love. it is Satan's Faith. Early church father called it demon's faith. I didn't make that up. PERFECT WORD for it. A Demon's faith.

God is Love. Faith Alone tries to weasel God out the equation.

There is absolutely no way anyone is going to win this without LOVE. Because there is no way anyone can win without GOD.

God = Love.

 

[utilyan]

All of your post oppose Faith in Jesus Christ altogether. Show me one post of yours where you said faith in Jesus Christ is needed for salvation, just one. You can't do it. You consider faith in the blood of Christ an unholy thing.

Simple test; Do you believe a person can hear and reject Jesus is Lord and Christ and still be saved?

Someone can be saved in the most dramatic sense not only rejecting Jesus is Lord but while actively seeking the destruction of all Christians. The final cut is Love. In the end there isn't a soul in heaven or hell who recognizes Jesus is Lord and Christ. Every knee bends.


Paul heard and rejected Jesus is Lord and Christ, He killed Christians and hunted them down. He was unrepentant, Not willing to stop. NO FAITH, No Love, He is killing Christians.

If you were there you'd look at Paul and say well that's a done deal.....

Yet God out of LOVE, Jesus out of mercy intervenes. Jesus is "saving him".

Paul did not earn this. Paul is like a flip side of Judas. Why does he show Paul mercy? UNBELIEF.


1 Timothy 1

12I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, 13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; 14and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.



How much mercy should I give those of unbelief like Paul? None? Just sit back and condemn them? You got to condemn with idea has a perfect knowledge of what it means to be GOD and LORD. As If I can challenge God....this your first time being GOD? What do I know of about being God?

The example I follow is Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Without this, You don't have a clue what a LORD is neither a GOD.


1 Timothy 1
5But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

 

[herbert]

A of A+B

steaver,

As I think upon this conversation, a quote comes to mind, a quote from a powerful speaker and evangelist, Fulton J. Sheen. This is what he said:

“There are others who like to see their neighbor criticized and their reputations ruined in order that they might have the feeling that they are not so evil in comparison. The vultures are always the first to smell the carrion.”

I wish to avoid this fault. I see it as my job, my personal task, to receive the love of God and by grace love the world in response, to remain in friendship with God as a new creature created in Christ, His divine handiwork, created to do good works, which God prepared in advance for me to do. It is my task to see that this "new creation" in Christ is listening to the Lord. It is not my job to take the writings of the Apostles or other Biblical authors and by those words, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, to damn anyone. Period. I affirm the reality of Hell. I affirm the reality of human souls ending up there. It is God's place, and not the place of a private individual (mere) human being, to suppose that he, even though he be armed with Holy Writ, rightly makes determinations concerning the eternal welfare of his fellow man.

Can you explain how you obey the Scripture if you stop short of doing what God's Word asks you to do?

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

I don't stop short of "trying the spirits" to determine whether or not they are of God. What gives you that impression? I stop short of damning people to Hell. Trying the spirits and determining who is Hell-bound and who is Heaven-bound (for those are ultimately the only two options for us) are two very different things. So for purposes of discernment, I "try the spirits" each and every day. But I don't do so as part of a broader effort to damn people.

You say you refuse to presume to know. Scripture instructs you to "try the spirits", is that not Scripture instructing you to know?

I know. I often appeal to analogies to try to make a point. But here's another: Say we are playing basketball. I can "check the jersey" to determine who's on my team and who's on the other. Such recognition, however, doesn't endow me with the ability to determine someone's future (much less their eternal) state. Hey, maybe the guy on the other team will get drafted by another team soon or even be on my squad next season!

Also Scripture does not ask you to make up your own standard to judge with, Scripture gives you the clear outline as to who is in Christ, who is of God and who is not of God. Scripture/God has given you the measure by which you are to make a right judgment. Again, How do you obey the Scripture by refusing to judge if a person is or is not a false prophet or false teacher?

Again, you're missing my point. I am not saying that Scripture doesn't provide the means by which I may make determinations concerning the sinfulness or holiness of a matter. I am saying, though, that my ability to recognize a person's adherence to or violation of Scriptural teachings doesn't grant me, somehow, the personal ability to say who's damned and who's not. In both of these cases you're drawing from Scripture conclusions which don't follow from any Scriptural premises. For I can affirm the Scriptures without concluding that I have, by virtue of having the ability to read God's Word, the ability to say who's Hell or Heaven-bound.

You say you won't violate Paul's exhortation. It seems you are misapplying this passage of Scripture for you are pitting Paul against John which is pitting Scripture against Scripture. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

Many things that seem to be the case, aren't. For example, it once seemed to me that the Catholic Church was a big, old, religulous mess. Now I see that it is the very Church Christ established which, despite a billion problems, like some great wave-tossed Ark, teaches rightly the doctrines of God.

Paul also wrote this for the Holy Spirit: 1 Ti 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Only by committing a logical fallacy can one take this verse and understand it to mean that a private individual can, by virtue of the fact that he can read, determine whether someone is going to Hell or not. Rebuke? I am all for rebuking a sinner. As a matter of fact, I was confirmed with the name Dismas. And what did he do? Though he couldn't be baptized, though he couldn't perform other good works such as feeding the poor and clothing the naked, St. Dismas of Calvary, the only Catholic Saint to have been Canonized by the Lord Himself, from up on his own cross, rebuked a sinner harshly. But rebuking a sinner, again, shouldn't be confused with the ability to say whether or not someone is going to Hell.

2 Ti 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine".

Only by committing a logical fallacy can one take this verse and understand it to mean that a private individual can, by virtue of the fact that he can read, determine whether someone is going to Hell or not.