xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

James 2:4 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If this verse is teaching that salvation is by faith plus works, then how does one square that with the fact that Paul clearly teaches salvation is by faith alone without works, as well as the fact that the only examples where Jesus saved people were the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7, who were saved by their faith alone, without works? In addition, if salvation is indeed by faith plus works, then how much works? What is the cutoff point between saved and unsaved with regard to works? Isn't this just new legalism to replace the old?

If freedombear is too afraid to respond, then can someone else? What is James saying here, in light of the totality of Scripture?

---

This verse is to Jews who are practicing the Law of Works, but also what James is saying is that true Faith will produce works. The verse in question is referring to works done AFTER Abraham was already saved. He showed his faith by his works.

---

And of course that is required or you don't have real faith. Just study the original txt not what Pastor Robert says at Bible study in Sunday's

You're catching on!!!

---

That is for God to decide, not us, who has genuine fakth. James was written to Jews. Paul's writings were written to the church. Paul is the Apostle of the gentiles. Are you with you under the law? If not then you need to go by Paul's writings.

---

Exactly! Nowhere does it say how you can know how much faith you have and if it's enough. Only God decides.

But believing cuz you had what you deem to be "enough" faith that one time when 12 (OSAS and all) is doubtful it gets it done. If at your judgement God says "did you o honor your mother and father as I commanded?" And you bought into "faith alone" (only 1 place in Bible and not supportive of the Protestant claim) and you say "no but I believe" and quote John 3:16 hopefully for Protestants souls sakes, it's enough.

Only God will know and all will be revealed. It's not what the Bible says but there's also Jews that think they will go to Heaven and don't believe in Jesus as Messiah. God will sort that out. I only know what the ancient text says. Shrug emoji

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

James 2:4 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If this verse is teaching that salvation is by faith plus works, then how does one square that with the fact that Paul clearly teaches salvation is by faith alone without works, as well as the fact that the only examples where Jesus saved people were the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7, who were saved by their faith alone, without works? In addition, if salvation is indeed by faith plus works, then how much works? What is the cutoff point between saved and unsaved with regard to works? Isn't this just new legalism to replace the old?

If freedombear is too afraid to respond, then can someone else? What is James saying here, in light of the totality of Scripture?

---

This verse is to Jews who are practicing the Law of Works, but also what James is saying is that true Faith will produce works. The verse in question is referring to works done AFTER Abraham was already saved. He showed his faith by his works.

---

And of course that is required or you don't have real faith. Just study the original txt not what Pastor Robert says at Bible study in Sunday's

You're catching on!!!

---

That is for God to decide, not us, who has genuine fakth. James was written to Jews. Paul's writings were written to the church. Paul is the Apostle of the gentiles. Are you with you under the law? If not then you need to go by Paul's writings.

---

I go by the inspired text and the traditions as the inspired texts instruct us to do

---

The big problem is that your traditions can't be traced back to the apostles or Jesus.

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

James 2:4 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If this verse is teaching that salvation is by faith plus works, then how does one square that with the fact that Paul clearly teaches salvation is by faith alone without works, as well as the fact that the only examples where Jesus saved people were the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7, who were saved by their faith alone, without works? In addition, if salvation is indeed by faith plus works, then how much works? What is the cutoff point between saved and unsaved with regard to works? Isn't this just new legalism to replace the old?

If freedombear is too afraid to respond, then can someone else? What is James saying here, in light of the totality of Scripture?

---

This verse is to Jews who are practicing the Law of Works, but also what James is saying is that true Faith will produce works. The verse in question is referring to works done AFTER Abraham was already saved. He showed his faith by his works.

---

And of course that is required or you don't have real faith. Just study the original txt not what Pastor Robert says at Bible study in Sunday's

You're catching on!!!

---

That is for God to decide, not us, who has genuine fakth. James was written to Jews. Paul's writings were written to the church. Paul is the Apostle of the gentiles. Are you with you under the law? If not then you need to go by Paul's writings.

---

Exactly! Nowhere does it say how you can know how much faith you have and if it's enough. Only God decides.

But believing cuz you had what you deem to be "enough" faith that one time when 12 (OSAS and all) is doubtful it gets it done. If at your judgement God says "did you o honor your mother and father as I commanded?" And you bought into "faith alone" (only 1 place in Bible and not supportive of the Protestant claim) and you say "no but I believe" and quote John 3:16 hopefully for Protestants souls sakes, it's enough.

Only God will know and all will be revealed. It's not what the Bible says but there's also Jews that think they will go to Heaven and don't believe in Jesus as Messiah. God will sort that out. I only know what the ancient text says. Shrug emoji

---

If we can't know whether or not we are saved, then why does 1 John 5:13 say that we can?

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Your beliefs about salvation just don't square up with what the bible teaches.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

James 2:4 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If this verse is teaching that salvation is by faith plus works, then how does one square that with the fact that Paul clearly teaches salvation is by faith alone without works, as well as the fact that the only examples where Jesus saved people were the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7, who were saved by their faith alone, without works? In addition, if salvation is indeed by faith plus works, then how much works? What is the cutoff point between saved and unsaved with regard to works? Isn't this just new legalism to replace the old?

If freedombear is too afraid to respond, then can someone else? What is James saying here, in light of the totality of Scripture?

---

This verse is to Jews who are practicing the Law of Works, but also what James is saying is that true Faith will produce works. The verse in question is referring to works done AFTER Abraham was already saved. He showed his faith by his works.

---

And of course that is required or you don't have real faith. Just study the original txt not what Pastor Robert says at Bible study in Sunday's

You're catching on!!!

---

That is for God to decide, not us, who has genuine fakth. James was written to Jews. Paul's writings were written to the church. Paul is the Apostle of the gentiles. Are you with you under the law? If not then you need to go by Paul's writings.

---

Exactly! Nowhere does it say how you can know how much faith you have and if it's enough. Only God decides.

But believing cuz you had what you deem to be "enough" faith that one time when 12 (OSAS and all) is doubtful it gets it done. If at your judgement God says "did you o honor your mother and father as I commanded?" And you bought into "faith alone" (only 1 place in Bible and not supportive of the Protestant claim) and you say "no but I believe" and quote John 3:16 hopefully for Protestants souls sakes, it's enough.

Only God will know and all will be revealed. It's not what the Bible says but there's also Jews that think they will go to Heaven and don't believe in Jesus as Messiah. God will sort that out. I only know what the ancient text says. Shrug emoji

---

If we can't know whether or not we are saved, then why does 1 John 5:13 say that we can?

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Your beliefs about salvation just don't square up with what the bible teaches.

---

Agreed. It doesn't have to be worded exactly the way you somebody wants or to mean the same thing. If it doesn't say faith alone in the Bible then he refuses to believe in the concept in the bible. But that's what the Bible teaches.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

James 2:4 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If this verse is teaching that salvation is by faith plus works, then how does one square that with the fact that Paul clearly teaches salvation is by faith alone without works, as well as the fact that the only examples where Jesus saved people were the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7, who were saved by their faith alone, without works? In addition, if salvation is indeed by faith plus works, then how much works? What is the cutoff point between saved and unsaved with regard to works? Isn't this just new legalism to replace the old?

If freedombear is too afraid to respond, then can someone else? What is James saying here, in light of the totality of Scripture?

---

This verse is to Jews who are practicing the Law of Works, but also what James is saying is that true Faith will produce works. The verse in question is referring to works done AFTER Abraham was already saved. He showed his faith by his works.

---

And of course that is required or you don't have real faith. Just study the original txt not what Pastor Robert says at Bible study in Sunday's

You're catching on!!!

---

That is for God to decide, not us, who has genuine fakth. James was written to Jews. Paul's writings were written to the church. Paul is the Apostle of the gentiles. Are you with you under the law? If not then you need to go by Paul's writings.

---

Exactly! Nowhere does it say how you can know how much faith you have and if it's enough. Only God decides.

But believing cuz you had what you deem to be "enough" faith that one time when 12 (OSAS and all) is doubtful it gets it done. If at your judgement God says "did you o honor your mother and father as I commanded?" And you bought into "faith alone" (only 1 place in Bible and not supportive of the Protestant claim) and you say "no but I believe" and quote John 3:16 hopefully for Protestants souls sakes, it's enough.

Only God will know and all will be revealed. It's not what the Bible says but there's also Jews that think they will go to Heaven and don't believe in Jesus as Messiah. God will sort that out. I only know what the ancient text says. Shrug emoji

---

If we can't know whether or not we are saved, then why does 1 John 5:13 say that we can?

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Your beliefs about salvation just don't square up with what the bible teaches.

---

Agreed. It doesn't have to be worded exactly the way you somebody wants or to mean the same thing. If it doesn't say faith alone in the Bible then he refuses to believe in the concept in the bible. But that's what the Bible teaches.

---

The Bible teaches many things you have to willingly ignore to arrive at your belief. Nowhere does it say " faith alone" in the context you or Protestants say sadly. For what you say you believe.
How God will sort that out and what Martin Luther did to lead the flock astray will be up to God.

I pray it works out for all involved. We need as many in God's army as possible but splintering from the trunk of Christianity and inventing new orthodoxy that no one wrote about in the times of Jesus as is all documented as early as the first century in traditions Catholics follow to this day is probably not wise but that's why God gives us free will.

Hopefully it's all pedantic but seems very fundamental to anyone not a Protestant or looking for the easy way to achieve everlasting life and to be in the narrow road.

I'm doing my small part here to educate and maybe help some people research and learn before it's too late.

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

Works cannot get you into Heaven. Lack of works can get you into hell. As is clearly written no matter who wants to invent the next religion to tweak the faith into something "easier"

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

Works cannot get you into Heaven. Lack of works can get you into hell. As is clearly written no matter who wants to invent the next religion to tweak the faith into something "easier"

---

Lotta popes have done the Devil's work, sad to say. Along with a lot of Protestant pastors who loved power and money a lot more than God or their neighbor.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

Works cannot get you into Heaven. Lack of works can get you into hell. As is clearly written no matter who wants to invent the next religion to tweak the faith into something "easier"

---

Lotta popes have done the Devil's work, sad to say. Along with a lot of Protestant pastors who loved power and money a lot more than God or their neighbor.

---

Many popes are likely burning in hell or long in purgatory most likely. One even has a strong case the current pope is an anti pope with his seemingly numerous heretical statements. Even Pope John Paul II kissing a Koran amongst other things.

They are all mere men doing a job (some well some not so well). Catholics and Christians should be wary to lean solely on the interpretation of their pastor, priest or a Pope when through one's own study and learned discussion it is clear they are not speaking in support of Jesus' teachings and the traditions of the apostles and the church.

You are 100% correct. There is an infiltration in the Catholic Church as us plain to see for all but it will be forever and weak men will come and go.

It is in fact the oldest western institution in existence.

And coincidentally or not, you noted 2 works that God commands us to do. Without them, faith alone is dead. .

I implore anyone that has been led astray and down the "faith alone" path of the many to at least indulge the follow compilation of writings from people that heard the voices of people that walked with Jesus or soon thereafter.

Not som reinterpretation thousands of years later that is a path of least resistance.

It may save your soul. And if I, the Bible, the church fathers and 2,000 years of the Catholic faith are wrong, well what did you really lose anyway? The risk of the contrary is eternal:

The early Church Fathers frequently discussed the relationship between faith and works, often emphasizing that true faith naturally manifests itself in actions and that both are essential for salvation. Below is a compilation of notable writings from the early Church Fathers (up to around the 5th century) that address the idea of faith requiring works or actions. These quotes reflect the broad consensus among many early Christian writers that faith and works are interconnected, rather than faith alone being sufficient for salvation. The writings are organized chronologically where possible, based on the approximate dates of the authors.

---

### Apostolic Fathers (Late 1st to Early 2nd Century)

1. **Clement of Rome (c. 3599 AD) - First Epistle to the Corinthians**
- *Text:* "Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words… Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?" (1 Clement 30:3, 31:2)
- *Context:* Clement, one of the earliest post-apostolic writers, argues that justification involves works, not just words or intellectual belief. He points to Abraham's actions as evidence of his faith, aligning with James 2:21-24.

2. **Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35107 AD) - Letter to the Ephesians**
- *Text:* "Those who profess to be Christ's will be recognized by their actions. For what matters is not a momentary act of professing, but being persistently motivated by faith." (Ephesians, ch. 14)
- *Context:* Written en route to his martyrdom, Ignatius stresses that genuine faith is demonstrated through consistent actions, not merely verbal profession.

3. **Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69155 AD) - Letter to the Philippians**
- *Text:* "If we do His will and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness… we shall obtain mercy." (Philippians, ch. 2)
- *Context:* Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, links faith to obedience and righteous living, suggesting that actions in accordance with God's will are necessary for receiving mercy.

4. **The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 100150 AD)**
- *Text:* "Do good, and from the fruit of your labors, God's gift, give to all those in need, without distinction… Since it is God's will that we give to all from His bounties, give to all." (Commandment 2)
- *Context:* This early Christian text emphasizes that good works, such as charity, are an expected outcome of faith and part of God's will for believers.

---

### Ante-Nicene Fathers (2nd to Early 4th Century)

5. **Justin Martyr (c. 100165 AD) - First Apology**
- *Text:* "We have been taught… that He [God] approves only of those who imitate His inherent virtues, namely temperance, justice, love of man, and any other virtue proper to God… And if men by their actions prove themselves worthy of His plan, they shall… be found worthy to make their abode with Him." (First Apology, ch. 10)
- *Context:* Justin argues that salvation involves living virtuously, implying that faith must be accompanied by actions that reflect God's character.

6. **Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130202 AD) - Against Heresies**
- *Text:* "For by doing the will of God, man gains life eternal… Those who are justified by faith… do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just." (Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 32)
- *Context:* Irenaeus connects justification by faith with doing God's will, indicating that active obedience is part of the process leading to eternal life.

7. **Clement of Alexandria (c. 150215 AD) - Stromateis (Miscellanies)**
- *Text:* "When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed… Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (Stromateis 6:14:108:4)
- *Context:* Clement explicitly ties faith to works, echoing James 2:17 and rejecting the idea that mere belief without action is sufficient.

8. **Tertullian (c. 155222 AD) - On Prayer**
- *Text:* "We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will and the capacity to do itso that we may be saved both in the heaven and on earth." (On Prayer, ch. 4)
- *Context:* Tertullian suggests that salvation requires both faith and the ability to perform God's will, indicating a cooperative effort.

9. **Origen (c. 185254 AD) - Commentaries on John**
- *Text:* "Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James." (Commentaries on John 19:6)
- *Context:* Origen reinforces the teaching of James, asserting that faith without works is lifeless and insufficient for salvation.

---

### Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (4th to 5th Century)

10. **Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335394 AD) - Homilies on Ecclesiastes**
- *Text:* "Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith." (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8)
- *Context:* Gregory emphasizes the interdependence of faith and works, arguing that neither alone is enough for salvation.

11. **John Chrysostom (c. 347407 AD) - Homilies on the Gospel of John**
- *Text:* "'He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.' 'Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,' someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?' By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven'… For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation." (Homilies on John 31:1)
- *Context:* Chrysostom rejects the notion that intellectual belief alone suffices, insisting that righteous living is a necessary expression of faith.

12. **Ambrose of Milan (c. 340397 AD) - On the Christian Faith**
- *Text:* "For those are good things… that is to say, either the Law, or the Church, which latter hath made two garments for her spouse… the one of action, the other of spirit, weaving together the threads of faith and works." (On the Christian Faith, Book 2, par. 11)
- *Context:* Ambrose uses a metaphor to illustrate that faith and works are interwoven, both being essential to the Christian life.

13. **Jerome (c. 347420 AD) - Letter 130**
- *Text:* "The gospel teaches us this in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins; the former of whom enter into the bridechamber of the bridegroom, while the latter are shut out from it because not having the oil of good works they allow their lamps to fail." (Letter 130, par. 11)
- *Context:* Jerome interprets the parable to mean that good works (the "oil") are necessary to sustain faith and enter salvation.

14. **Augustine of Hippo (c. 354430 AD) - On Faith and Works**
- *Text:* "He who created you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation… Faith itself is a work, and unless it produces good works, it is dead." (On Faith and Works, ch. 14)
- *Context:* Augustine, while a key figure in emphasizing grace, also taught that faith must be active and cooperative with works to be salvific.

15. **Leo the Great (c. 400461 AD) - Sermon 33**
- *Text:* "In which regard, dearly-beloved, ye ought all to help one another in turn, that in the kingdom of God, which is reached by right faith and good works, ye may shine as the sons of light." (Sermon 33)
- *Context:* As a later Father, Leo reaffirms that salvation involves both faith and good works, consistent with earlier teachings.

16. **Gregory the Great (c. 540604 AD) - Homilies on Ezekiel**
- *Text:* "Neither faith without works nor works without faith is of any avail, except, perhaps, that works may go towards the reception of faith, just as Cornelius, before he had become one of the faithful, merited to be heard on account of his good works." (Homilies on Ezekiel 1:9:6)
- *Context:* Writing slightly beyond the 5th century, Gregory summarizes the traditional view that faith and works are both necessary, using Cornelius as an example of works leading to faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

I agree 1000% .

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

I agree 1000% .

---

Something Protestants and Catholics agree on. I knew we'd find a common ground somewhere

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A true Christian cannot lose their Salvation, but they can fall out of fellowship with the Lord and Lose His Peace.

---

What does this (bolded print) mean?

How does one KNOW that they are a true Christian?

Finally, in Galatian 5:4, St. Paul states to the new Christians, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace." So if they were severed from Christ, they have obviously were WITH Christ (saved) but they lost salvation.

Fortunately, the Catholic church gives us a way to restore our friendship with Him thru the sacrament of Reconciliation.

---

It means that a true Christian may be Saved, but they can greive the Holy Spirit by sinning...

Ephesians 4:30 KJV

[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Catholic Church has no power or Authority over the Word of God, the Bible.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV

[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV
[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.


Hebrews 12:7-9, 11 KJV

[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? [8] But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

[11] Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A true Christian cannot lose their Salvation, but they can fall out of fellowship with the Lord and Lose His Peace.

---

What does this (bolded print) mean?

How does one KNOW that they are a true Christian?

Finally, in Galatian 5:4, St. Paul states to the new Christians, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace." So if they were severed from Christ, they have obviously were WITH Christ (saved) but they lost salvation.

Fortunately, the Catholic church gives us a way to restore our friendship with Him thru the sacrament of Reconciliation.

---

It means that a true Christian may be Saved, but they can greive the Holy Spirit by sinning...

Ephesians 4:30 KJV

[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Catholic Church has no power or Authority over the Word of God, the Bible.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV

[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV
[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.


Hebrews 12:7-9, 11 KJV

[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? [8] But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

[11] Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

---

Quite ironically the Catholic Church created / assembled the Bible.

Not sure any Catholic would say they have "authority over the Bible" but they are the church upon which Jesus used Peter to build and, to this day, his bones are interred under the altar in the Vatican on the grounds of his upside down crucifixin.

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A true Christian cannot lose their Salvation, but they can fall out of fellowship with the Lord and Lose His Peace.

---

What does this (bolded print) mean?

How does one KNOW that they are a true Christian?

Finally, in Galatian 5:4, St. Paul states to the new Christians, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace." So if they were severed from Christ, they have obviously were WITH Christ (saved) but they lost salvation.

Fortunately, the Catholic church gives us a way to restore our friendship with Him thru the sacrament of Reconciliation.

---

It means that a true Christian may be Saved, but they can greive the Holy Spirit by sinning...

Ephesians 4:30 KJV

[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Catholic Church has no power or Authority over the Word of God, the Bible.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV

[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV
[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.


Hebrews 12:7-9, 11 KJV

[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? [8] But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

[11] Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

---

Quite ironically the Catholic Church created / assembled the Bible.

Not sure any Catholic would say they have "authority over the Bible" but they are the church upon which Jesus used Peter to build and, to this day, his bones are interred under the altar in the Vatican on the grounds of his upside down crucifixin.

---

What if I told yiu that the Grace Age Church didn't start with Peter, it started with Paul? Peter was a Minister to Israel, not the Church. The Catholic Church was started by Constantine.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that works can get you into Heaven has led many into hell.

---

Works cannot get you into Heaven. Lack of works can get you into hell. As is clearly written no matter who wants to invent the next religion to tweak the faith into something "easier"

---

How lacking? How many works are needed to get past the cutoff point and into heaven?

If you're answer is that no one can know, then it means no one can know if they are saved. But that completely contradicts 1 John 5:13 - "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

You have a glaring problem with your position, yet oddly you don't even seem to care. This is an indicator of someone who really isn't interested in knowing the truth.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A true Christian cannot lose their Salvation, but they can fall out of fellowship with the Lord and Lose His Peace.

---

What does this (bolded print) mean?

How does one KNOW that they are a true Christian?

Finally, in Galatian 5:4, St. Paul states to the new Christians, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace." So if they were severed from Christ, they have obviously were WITH Christ (saved) but they lost salvation.

Fortunately, the Catholic church gives us a way to restore our friendship with Him thru the sacrament of Reconciliation.

---

It means that a true Christian may be Saved, but they can greive the Holy Spirit by sinning...

Ephesians 4:30 KJV

[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Catholic Church has no power or Authority over the Word of God, the Bible.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV

[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:21 KJV
[21] There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.


Hebrews 12:7-9, 11 KJV

[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? [8] But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

[11] Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

---

Quite ironically the Catholic Church created / assembled the Bible.

Not sure any Catholic would say they have "authority over the Bible" but they are the church upon which Jesus used Peter to build and, to this day, his bones are interred under the altar in the Vatican on the grounds of his upside down crucifixin.

---

What if I told yiu that the Grace Age Church didn't start with Peter, it started with Paul? Peter was a Minister to Israel, not the Church. The Catholic Church was started by Constantine.

---

Grace Age Church?

Didn't know a convert could be a founder. Fascinating. Also incorrect. The reason it's called Catholic of course is because it's all there ever was. It was…..universal. Anything created since then is nothing more than a standard deviation or more removed based on this grievance or that.

However Peter was the Rock (the first Pope and all through the unbroken apostolic secession to this day) and the Rock never changes, God never changes, the traditions are what they are etc.

Only humans can try or attempt to soften it or weaken it or morph it or invent new dogma etc. the best known example of which started in the 1500s under Martin Luther and the derivatives thereof since.

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

You see, this is the problem. Roman Catholics are just like millions of other people. Some are genuinely Christian, and some are not. Some genuinely want to be better people, and some play at faith but never really follow Christ, they just go through the motions.

You clearly have great contempt for Martin Luther. Personally, I am divided on Luther, because I believe he was serving God in defying the anti-Christian behavior of the Roman clergy at the top, but his other behaviors show he was a flawed man.

Most popes were, in my opinion, self-serving hypocrites, corrupted by wealth and power. It's a very foolish and unbiblical notion to have a living human roleplay Christ the way these guys do. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Protestant ministers do the same thing and they too will face an angry God in their time.

But the Roman church has both good and bad qualities. Your problem is you seem to imagine there is more good than evil, and that the doctrines from Rome are somehow just as important, maybe more, than the actual example and teaching from Christ Himself.

If you have been in this thread and while, you will know that I have taken some of our Protestants to task as well. I am certainly not a perfect person, but feel moved to call out those who imagine they are better than others here.

That way lies genuine peril, brother.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

.....

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

Why should there be a discussion, if you just block those whose arguments you can't answer, and pretend they don't exist?

Closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears while saying "la la la I can't hear you!" is not a very good way of seeking and finding the truth. It's why you probably aren't having much sway here. Positions that rely on escapism and dodging aren't too persuasive.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

You see, this is the problem. Roman Catholics are just like millions of other people. Some are genuinely Christian, and some are not. Some genuinely want to be better people, and some play at faith but never really follow Christ, they just go through the motions.

You clearly have great contempt for Martin Luther. Personally, I am divided on Luther, because I believe he was serving God in defying the anti-Christian behavior of the Roman clergy at the top, but his other behaviors show he was a flawed man.

Most popes were, in my opinion, self-serving hypocrites, corrupted by wealth and power. It's a very foolish and unbiblical notion to have a living human roleplay Christ the way these guys do. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Protestant ministers do the same thing and they too will face an angry God in their time.

But the Roman church has both good and bad qualities. Your problem is you seem to imagine there is more good than evil, and that the doctrines from Rome are somehow just as important, maybe more, than the actual example and teaching from Christ Himself.

If you have been in this thread and while, you will know that I have taken some of our Protestants to task as well. I am certainly not a perfect person, but feel moved to call out those who imagine they are better than others here.

That way lies genuine peril, brother.

---

Your problem continues to be that you are more concerned about getting into the head of commenters and their motivations, whether or not they "imagine" themselves as being better than others, rather on whether or not the doctrines being discussed are correct or not.

You are correct that among Roman Catholics, some are authentically Christian. But that would only be in spite of her teachings, not because of. Doctrinally, Roman Catholicism is very, very problematic. Pointing this out is not "imagining" one is a better person than a Roman Catholic. The discussion is more important and relevant at the doctrinal level, not the level of ad hominem. It's about Roman CatholicISM vs. ProtestantISM, not Roman CatholicS vs. ProtestantS. From this perspective, what exactly is it about the Protestant doctrine that you had to "take Protestants to task" for?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

You see, this is the problem. Roman Catholics are just like millions of other people. Some are genuinely Christian, and some are not. Some genuinely want to be better people, and some play at faith but never really follow Christ, they just go through the motions.

You clearly have great contempt for Martin Luther. Personally, I am divided on Luther, because I believe he was serving God in defying the anti-Christian behavior of the Roman clergy at the top, but his other behaviors show he was a flawed man.

Most popes were, in my opinion, self-serving hypocrites, corrupted by wealth and power. It's a very foolish and unbiblical notion to have a living human roleplay Christ the way these guys do. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Protestant ministers do the same thing and they too will face an angry God in their time.

But the Roman church has both good and bad qualities. Your problem is you seem to imagine there is more good than evil, and that the doctrines from Rome are somehow just as important, maybe more, than the actual example and teaching from Christ Himself.

If you have been in this thread and while, you will know that I have taken some of our Protestants to task as well. I am certainly not a perfect person, but feel moved to call out those who imagine they are better than others here.

That way lies genuine peril, brother.

---

Your problem continues to be that you are more concerned about getting into the head of commenters and their motivations, whether or not they "imagine" themselves as being better than others, rather on whether or not the doctrines being discussed are correct or not.

You are correct that among Roman Catholics, some are authentically Christian. But that would only be in spite of her teachings, not because of. Doctrinally, Roman Catholicism is very, very problematic. Pointing this out is not "imagining" one is a better person than a Roman Catholic. The discussion is more important and relevant at the doctrinal level, not the level of ad hominem. It's about Roman CatholicISM vs. ProtestantISM, not Roman CatholicS vs. ProtestantS. From this perspective, what exactly is it about the Protestant doctrine that you had to "take Protestants to task" for?

---

Honestly, BusyTarpDuster, you react badly to some of my posts, so I am only going to address part of your last post.

That is to say, a lot of people fail to understand why Scripture matters so much. People get into arguments about 'Sola' this or that, but fail to understand that people, almost universally, plug their own opinions into moral/spiritual/faith discussions, and this leads to subjective assumptions that can and do lead some people into bad error.

Scripture is the best way to test our assumptions and check our bias when choosing how to speak and act. That is, how did Jesus react to this sort of behavior or claim? There's a lot to give us guidance and insight, especially when the Old Testament contributes additional context and support.

My biggest doctrinal complaint against the Roman church is how often they claim that their Tradition is the same or better than actual Scripture.

I certainly agree we should avoid ad hominem. It's simply that the man inevitably proves to be the source of the doctrine, unless we step back and ask for God's guidance rather than our own pretense for wisdom,

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

You see, this is the problem. Roman Catholics are just like millions of other people. Some are genuinely Christian, and some are not. Some genuinely want to be better people, and some play at faith but never really follow Christ, they just go through the motions.

You clearly have great contempt for Martin Luther. Personally, I am divided on Luther, because I believe he was serving God in defying the anti-Christian behavior of the Roman clergy at the top, but his other behaviors show he was a flawed man.

Most popes were, in my opinion, self-serving hypocrites, corrupted by wealth and power. It's a very foolish and unbiblical notion to have a living human roleplay Christ the way these guys do. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Protestant ministers do the same thing and they too will face an angry God in their time.

But the Roman church has both good and bad qualities. Your problem is you seem to imagine there is more good than evil, and that the doctrines from Rome are somehow just as important, maybe more, than the actual example and teaching from Christ Himself.

If you have been in this thread and while, you will know that I have taken some of our Protestants to task as well. I am certainly not a perfect person, but feel moved to call out those who imagine they are better than others here.

That way lies genuine peril, brother.

---

Your problem continues to be that you are more concerned about getting into the head of commenters and their motivations, whether or not they "imagine" themselves as being better than others, rather on whether or not the doctrines being discussed are correct or not.

You are correct that among Roman Catholics, some are authentically Christian. But that would only be in spite of her teachings, not because of. Doctrinally, Roman Catholicism is very, very problematic. Pointing this out is not "imagining" one is a better person than a Roman Catholic. The discussion is more important and relevant at the doctrinal level, not the level of ad hominem. It's about Roman CatholicISM vs. ProtestantISM, not Roman CatholicS vs. ProtestantS. From this perspective, what exactly is it about the Protestant doctrine that you had to "take Protestants to task" for?

---

Honestly, BusyTarpDuster, you react badly to some of my posts, so I am only going to address part of your last post.

That is to say, a lot of people fail to understand why Scripture matters so much. People get into arguments about 'Sola' this or that, but fail to understand that people, almost universally, plug their own opinions into moral/spiritual/faith discussions, and this leads to subjective assumptions that can and do lead some people into bad error.

Scripture is the best way to test our assumptions and check our bias when choosing how to speak and act. That is, how did Jesus react to this sort of behavior or claim? There's a lot to give us guidance and insight, especially when the Old Testament contributes additional context and support.

My biggest doctrinal complaint against the Roman church is how often they claim that their Tradition is the same or better than actual Scripture.

I certainly agree we should avoid ad hominem. It's simply that the man inevitably proves to be the source of the doctrine, unless we step back and ask for God's guidance rather than our own pretense for wisdom,

---

Many of your posts are problematic. How else should I react to them?

I agree with your stance on Scripture, but just as people plug their own subjective assumptions into morals and faith, they do the same in their interpretation of Scripture. We've seen that a lot here. And therein lies the problem. Even if sola scriptura, it doesn't solve the problem.

I also agree that Roman Catholicism's source of authority (scripture AND tradition) is problematic. However, that is only the beginning of Rome's problems, as I think I've made clear in this thread. But I'm not seeing what it is doctrinally about Protestantism that you had to "take them to task" for. Can you elaborate?

The problem for Protestants, BusyTarpDuster, is that success can lead to solipsism and arrogance.

Anytime a church has thousands of members, I find that church does a poor job of pastoring the flock and tending to the spiritual needs of the congregation. Ironically, such churches often have famous and charismatic leaders who sell popular books and have podcasts and TV shows.

The best servants of Christ I have been blessed to know, have always focused on the one to one ministry, the often silent work of proving Christ's presence through personal actions in faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like someone loves their pointy-hat denomination more than they love Jesus.

---

No shame in loving the Truth

We humans only use denominations as ways to delineate what one loves about their faith. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it just…is. It started with universal that exists to this day and then the new derivations thereof.

Therein lies the entertaining discussions, teachings, sharing, learning and the pondering of how it may impact one's and their family's eternal soul…or not.

Didn't really receive much discussion here on a ton of historical perspective in the post of what it means to have faith. Not surprised but maybe planted a seed for some to privately consider while there's still time.

---

You see, this is the problem. Roman Catholics are just like millions of other people. Some are genuinely Christian, and some are not. Some genuinely want to be better people, and some play at faith but never really follow Christ, they just go through the motions.

You clearly have great contempt for Martin Luther. Personally, I am divided on Luther, because I believe he was serving God in defying the anti-Christian behavior of the Roman clergy at the top, but his other behaviors show he was a flawed man.

Most popes were, in my opinion, self-serving hypocrites, corrupted by wealth and power. It's a very foolish and unbiblical notion to have a living human roleplay Christ the way these guys do. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Protestant ministers do the same thing and they too will face an angry God in their time.

But the Roman church has both good and bad qualities. Your problem is you seem to imagine there is more good than evil, and that the doctrines from Rome are somehow just as important, maybe more, than the actual example and teaching from Christ Himself.

If you have been in this thread and while, you will know that I have taken some of our Protestants to task as well. I am certainly not a perfect person, but feel moved to call out those who imagine they are better than others here.

That way lies genuine peril, brother.

---

This is a curious post. While certainly there are self righteous people of all faiths. I've not attempted to defend flawed human popes as each and every one is. I've never suggested they are deities. God built the church on Peter - a man that couldn't even acknowledge he knew the Christ in that moment 3 times. David was a serial adulterer and fornicator. Etc etc

I'd lean towards the current Pope being an anti pope. If the media is correct, he's certainly said many very heretical things.

Martin Luther in my opinion has led many people astray due to that very thing. His contempt for people in positions of power that were not stewards of the faith that was handed down generation to generation
And documented in the Bible. It's possible what he did was even worse given the impact of the last 500 years worth of souls. I mainly reference him as a key schism point where many went a different direction vs solving the issues of the one church. There's over 40,000 Christian denominations depending how they are counted. We only we needed one universal church. I speak weekly with priests and laeity about the failures of the church and lack of courage to speak to the topics that the congregation needs to hear if they are to be saved.

How God handles all that, only God and those affected will know. We all struggle daily to be like Christ. That's why we are saved by Grace. None of us could ever be good enough. That's not been the debate of many of these posts. Or maybe the point is being missed by some.

I'd say there's more good than evil in the Catholic Church through the millennia. Guilty.

What Catholic doctrine have we discussed that's been suggested as more important than the example of Christ? I can't think of one but please share if you disagree.

My understanding is we have been debating the interpretation of the inspired texts and what has been documented on it by men that walked with Christ that had these same discussions 2000 years ago.

Frankly, we're not uncovering any questions or topics here that didn't go back to even Ignatious in the first century.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem for Protestants, BusyTarpDuster, is that success can lead to solipsism and arrogance.

Anytime a church has thousands of members, I find that church does a poor job of pastoring the flock and tending to the spiritual needs of the congregation. Ironically, such churches often have famous and charismatic leaders who sell popular books and have podcasts and TV shows.

The best servants of Christ I have been blessed to know, have always focused on the one to one ministry, the often silent work of proving Christ's presence through personal actions in faith.

---

See, I'm not seeing anything doctrinal here. Like I said, you're putting motivations into people's hearts, and judging that straw man. You're also addressing the problems of teachERS, not teachINGS of Protestantism.

You certainly prefer argument over discussion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You certainly prefer argument over discussion.

---

This is exactly what I mean. You only want to get into the head of the other person and attack a straw man instead of actually address things with substance. THIS is why others react "badly" to your posts.

Actually BusyTarpDuster, very very few people have reacted angrily to my posts.

You, of course, have made it de regiuer.

Happy Sunday everybody. Find a good Bible believing church and attend.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually BusyTarpDuster, very very few people have reacted angrily to my posts.

You, of course, have made it de regiuer.

---

Wanna bet?

And there you go again. You keep demonstrating my point. You constantly assume "anger" in other people's posts. I really think you're projecting.

Tomorrow begins a new week

I've been struggling what I've heard some here says is all that is needed from you for eternal salvation with Jesus' words to "pick up your cross"

Make it make sense.

I believe

Denial is common when someone dislikes the truth.