So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
18,741 Views |
566 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.Mothra said:God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.
Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.
Because he was a normal person talking to normal people, not a walking encyclopedia trying to deliver a theological dissertation with every utterance.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
Jesus was a normal person?Sam Lowry said:Because he was a normal person talking to normal people, not a walking encyclopedia trying to deliver a comprehensive theological treatise with every utterance.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
He didn't have to be a "walking encyclopedia" to deliver his gospel of grace through faith, the same way he demonstrated with the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7. I mean, if that's the case, then he had to be a "walking encyclopedia" to someone at some point, if anyone was going to know about the Gospel, right?
You're playing games at this point instead of dealing with this honestly. Jesus' point was to get the rich young ruler, as well as the people around who were hearing him, to realize that there was no way to get to heaven by obeying the Law, that they needed a Savior. A lot of what he said before the cross was to get people to realize this. It's the same reason why he said simply calling someone a "fool" will send them to Hell, an easily commitable sin. Who hasn't at least said that in their heart about someone, or something even worse? We'd all be screwed if we didn't have a Savior. That was the point of that verse. That's the context you missed.
In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake if that's what he was preaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.Sam Lowry said:I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.Sam Lowry said:I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
I've suggested that the only way to have peace is to trick Jesus into thinking you have true faith so he'd save you, so you can sin to your heart's delight? Holy straw man, Batman!Sam Lowry said:Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.Sam Lowry said:I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?Sam Lowry said:No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?Sam Lowry said:I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?Sam Lowry said:He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.
Before you latch on to your new "insight", realize that true faith isn't where one believes just so they can have the "entitlement" to sin.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.
This is an unbelievably dangerous heresy. To say that half of Matthew 18 doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus taught it during his earthly ministry before the resurrection is heretical. Particularly given the scriptural context: which clearly indicates that this addresses those who believe in Him.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).
How does this apply to the modern Christian? It is not a question of actually gouging out your eye, but rather expelling occasions to sin from your life, and doing so aggressively.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.
But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.
I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.Sam Lowry said:True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.Mothra said:God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.
Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.
While believers who sin are told to confess their sins both to God and one another (wash their feet, so to speak), at no point does scripture state or even suggest that the believer has lost his salvation. Now, undoubtedly, there may be some false converts who were never saved to begin with, but that is a different scenario than the true convert who stumbles into sin. He is not condemned for doing so. Christ's grace covers a multitude of sins.
If your previous posts have demonstrated anything, it is that you lack even a basic understanding of the evangelical gospel. I am shocked by some of the erroneous conclusions you've reached on this thread. This post is no different. What makes it even more ironic is that while you accuse Evangelicals of ignoring scripture, numerous Catholic practices find no scriptural support and in some instances, are completely opposed to scripture.Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.
This is an unbelievably dangerous heresy. To say that half of Matthew 18 doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus taught it during his earthly ministry before the resurrection is heretical. Particularly given the scriptural context: which clearly indicates that this addresses those who believe in Him.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).
How does this apply to the modern Christian? It is not a question of actually gouging out your eye, but rather expelling occasions to sin from your life, and doing so aggressively.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.
But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.
Let me help you with the differences between your faith and ours:
- Evangelicals believe the plain language of Paul's words in Ephesians 2:8-9, and Christ's words in John 3:16-18 mean what they say. There is no added requirement that works help us achieve salvation, or otherwise it would not be a free gift.
- Evangelicals believe works are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, demonstrating faith in Christ, but are not a requirement for salvation, as this is a position that finds no biblical support. See thief on the cross.
- Evangelicals believe in the authority of scripture, whereas Catholics believe in the authority of scripture AND the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope (and its traditions), and use both to instruct their practices.
- Catholics believe sacraments are required for salvation. Evangelicals (correctly) believe this position finds no scriptural support whatsoever, and is contrary to the verses quoted above.
- Evangelicals believe all sins cause us to fall short of the glory of God, and that there is no differentiation between "mortal" sins and other sins. Catholics - through tradition not scripture - have come up with their own list of what sins they believe "lead to death" and those which do not, although scripture does not identify these sins.
- Evangelicals believe salvation is a one time event, and that for the true convert, his name cannot be blotted from the Book of Life. Catholics believe salvation (or justification) is a process, and that they must do enough good works to eventually (or hopefully) attain (or earn) salvation (again, a position diametrically opposed to the plain language of scripture).
- Evangelicals believe in two places we go in the afterlife - Heaven and Hell. Catholics believe in a third option - purgatory - though it once again finds no support in scripture.
- Evangelicals believe in sharing in communion among believers as an act of obedience. Many Catholics believe, however, that the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation (again, a position not found in scripture).
- Catholics believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church referred to in scripture, and that all other sects are essentially going to Hell. Evangelicals believe that anyone who has put their faith in Christ and received his salvation is a part of the body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and that one doesn't have to subscribe to Catholicism (or any particular sect or congregation) be saved or a part of Christ's body.
- Catholics have placed special importance over mortals referenced in scripture, believing that tradition teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven, and coronated the Queen of Heaven (a position found nowhere in scripture, but instead a part of tradition).
There are others, but these are the main differences.
Mothra said:
Let me help you with the differences between your faith and ours:
Let me correct your list.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe works are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, demonstrating faith in Christ, but are not a requirement for salvation, as this is a position that finds no biblical support.
Works (or fruit, if you prefer the term,I do due to the baggage surrounding the term works) are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, not the means of our justification (or reconciliation if you prefer the term as Paul states in Romans). However, they are required according to Luke 12:48, Matthew 25:14-30, and James 2:14-26, John 3:36. As you can clearly see, there is ample biblical support for this position and none for the idea that fruitless faith saves a man.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe in the authority of scripture, whereas Catholics believe in the authority of scripture AND the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope (and its traditions), and use both to instruct their practices.
Scripture, as interpreted by the Church fathers, is authoritative. That is, scripture and tradition. For example, you cannot excise Matthew 7:1 from the bible and try and use it to justify modernist proclivities. You cannot excise Acts 2:4 as a defense of the practice of fake prophecy and pig latin in the service. There used to be a saying in Baptist circles, "If it's new, it isn't true. If it's true, it isn't new." 100% correct, except the reference frame for that isn't American in 1970. It is the Levant from 33 AD to 787 AD.
The Roman Catholic Church has no authority. It is a schismatic modernist institution that fell away from the Christian faith 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have stacked innovation upon innovation to the point that it, and their hippie pope are almost unrecognizable as a Christian institution.
Quote:
Catholics believe sacraments are required for salvation. Evangelicals (correctly) believe this position finds no scriptural support whatsoever, and is contrary to the verses quoted above.
Sacraments aid us in finishing the race and living a disciplined Christian life. To use an analogy, they are like water/first aid stations along a marathon course. There are other Christian disciplines like this. Prayer, fasting, reading the Bible, charitable works.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe all sins cause us to fall short of the glory of God, and that there is no differentiation between "mortal" sins and other sins. Catholics - through tradition not scripture - have come up with their own list of what sins they believe "lead to death" and those which do not, although scripture does not identify these sins.
Correct. The wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life. There is no supernatural distinction between the felony and misdemeanor from a judgement perspective.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe salvation is a one time event, and that for the true convert, his name cannot be blotted from the Book of Life.
Yes, you do. This despite Jesus clearly saying ""He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life" (Revelation 3:5). Reconciliation is an event. Salvation is a process. Even the erroneous terms on the evangelical side (salvation followed by sanctification) are designed to prop up OSAS.
Quote:
Catholics believe salvation (or justification) is a process, and that they must do enough good works to eventually (or hopefully) attain (or earn) salvation (again, a position diametrically opposed to the plain language of scripture).
Salvation is a process, but the good works we do don't earn it. Over and over the scriptures repeat the phrase "he who overcomes", "the one who perseveres". The fruit we bear is the proof that we continue to abide in Christ, carry our cross, and run the race.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe in two places we go in the afterlife - Heaven and Hell. Catholics believe in a third option - purgatory - though it once again finds no support in scripture.
Purgatory doesn't exist. It was dogmatized and added to the Roman Catholic religion at the Council of Trent in the 1500s.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe in sharing in communion among believers as an act of obedience. Many Catholics believe, however, that the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation (again, a position not found in scripture).
The question here is whether or not the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. This was the clear teaching of Christ in John 6. Moreover, it is what Christians believed and taught for the first millenium and a half of Church history. Even Martin Luther believed this. The idea of communion as a mere remembrance is an innovation that is roughly 400 years old at this point. I don't understand how it happens scientifically, nobody does. Then again, I don't understand how raising the dead happens scientifically either. Just take Him at His word.
Quote:
Catholics believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church referred to in scripture
They do believe that. It is not.
Quote:
and that all other sects are essentially going to Hell.
They used to believe that, they actually changed that teaching at Vatican 2.
Quote:
Evangelicals believe that anyone who has put their faith in Christ and received his salvation is a part of the body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and that one doesn't have to subscribe to Catholicism (or any particular sect or congregation) be saved or a part of Christ's body.
Think about what you're saying here. The individual can say I've put my faith in Christ, I've received my boarding pass to heaven, and not to be part of the body of Christ or bear fruit in any meaningful way here on earth?
Quote:
Catholics have placed special importance over mortals referenced in scripture, believing that tradition teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin (not difficult to believe when you realize that other historical sources of the time say that Joseph was an elderly widower when Mary was betrothed to him), immaculately conceived (added in 1854), assumed into heaven, and coronated the Queen of Heaven (added in 1950) (a position found nowhere in scripture, but instead a part of tradition).
As seen above, much of that Marian doctrine is relatively new innovation.
Let's take these one at a time:
You said:
Works (or fruit, if you prefer the term,I do due to the baggage surrounding the term works) are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, not the means of our justification (or reconciliation if you prefer the term as Paul states in Romans). However, they are required according to Luke 12:48, Matthew 25:14-30, and James 2:14-26. As you can clearly see, there is ample biblical support for this position and none for the idea that fruitless faith saves a man.
I don't disagree with anything you said. We agree that works are expected of the Christian. The question is, are they required for salvation? Sounds like you and I agree they are not.
You said:
Works (or fruit, if you prefer the term,I do due to the baggage surrounding the term works) are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, not the means of our justification (or reconciliation if you prefer the term as Paul states in Romans). However, they are required according to Luke 12:48, Matthew 25:14-30, and James 2:14-26. As you can clearly see, there is ample biblical support for this position and none for the idea that fruitless faith saves a man.
I don't disagree with anything you said. We agree that works are expected of the Christian. The question is, are they required for salvation? Sounds like you and I agree they are not.
You said:
Scripture, as interpreted by the Church fathers, is authoritative. That is, scripture and tradition. For example, you cannot excise Matthew 7:1 from the bible and try and use it to justify modernist proclivities. You cannot excise Acts 2:4 as a defense of the practice of fake prophecy and pig latin in the service. There used to be a saying in Baptist circles, "If it's new, it isn't true. If it's true, it isn't new." 100% correct, except the reference frame for that isn't American in 1970. It is the Levant from 33 AD to 787 AD.The Roman Catholic Church has no authority. It is a schismatic modernist institution that fell away from the Christian faith 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have stacked innovation upon innovation to the point that it, and their hippie pope are almost unrecognizable as a Christian institution.
We disagree here. Scripture can be interpreted and understood by the individual believer. There is no need for a priest, a pope, or some church father from hundreds or thousands of years ago to interpret it for us. We can go directly to the source.
There is no scriptural support for the position that the Church fathers have to "interpret" scripture for us. None. This is another man-made idea of the Catholic Church to consolidate its power and influence over people.
Scripture, as interpreted by the Church fathers, is authoritative. That is, scripture and tradition. For example, you cannot excise Matthew 7:1 from the bible and try and use it to justify modernist proclivities. You cannot excise Acts 2:4 as a defense of the practice of fake prophecy and pig latin in the service. There used to be a saying in Baptist circles, "If it's new, it isn't true. If it's true, it isn't new." 100% correct, except the reference frame for that isn't American in 1970. It is the Levant from 33 AD to 787 AD.The Roman Catholic Church has no authority. It is a schismatic modernist institution that fell away from the Christian faith 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have stacked innovation upon innovation to the point that it, and their hippie pope are almost unrecognizable as a Christian institution.
We disagree here. Scripture can be interpreted and understood by the individual believer. There is no need for a priest, a pope, or some church father from hundreds or thousands of years ago to interpret it for us. We can go directly to the source.
There is no scriptural support for the position that the Church fathers have to "interpret" scripture for us. None. This is another man-made idea of the Catholic Church to consolidate its power and influence over people.
Sacraments aid us in running the race and living a disciplined Christian life.
I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?
I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?
Mothra said:
Sacraments aid us in running the race and living a disciplined Christian life.
I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?
It depends on what you mean by "required". If you come to faith and perish unable to partake in baptism and the eucharist then they are not required. If you come to faith and then of your own free will refuse to partake in baptism and the eucharist, you are lost. In the church of the first millenium, the catachumen spent many months or years being instructed in the faith before being baptized and entering into communion. Yet it was the universally held that a catachumen who died before this was still saved.
Yes, you do. This despite Jesus clearly saying ""He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life" (Revelation 3:5). Reconciliation is an event. Salvation is a process. Even the erroneous terms on the evangelical side (salvation followed by sanctification) are designed to prop up OSAS.
This is where you are in error. You are attempting to use a verse in which Christ says he will not do something to suggest he will, in fact, do the converse in certain instances. This is not a logical or scripturally sound position.
At no point did Christ ever state he would blot out someone's name from the Book of Life. Moreover, that position would be inconsistent with all of his other teachings in the Gospels, as well as Paul's teachings discussed ad nauseum on this thread.
There is no biblical support for the position that salvation is a process. None.
This is where you are in error. You are attempting to use a verse in which Christ says he will not do something to suggest he will, in fact, do the converse in certain instances. This is not a logical or scripturally sound position.
At no point did Christ ever state he would blot out someone's name from the Book of Life. Moreover, that position would be inconsistent with all of his other teachings in the Gospels, as well as Paul's teachings discussed ad nauseum on this thread.
There is no biblical support for the position that salvation is a process. None.
Let's back up. You previously suggested works are not required for salvation. Do you believe that or not?Realitybites said:Mothra said:
Sacraments aid us in running the race and living a disciplined Christian life.
I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?
It depends on what you mean by "required". If you come to faith and perish unable to partake in baptism and the eucharist then they are not required. If you come to faith and then of your own free will refuse to partake in baptism and the eucharist, you are lost.
I agree that a person who refuses Baptism or communion is likely not a Christian. These are likely false converts, seeds planted in rocky soil, and the sun exposes them for what they are.
But these simply are not prerequisites to salvation.
The question here is whether or not the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. This was the clear teaching of Christ in John 6. Moreover, it is what Christians believed and taught for the first millenium and a half of Church history. Even Martin Luther believed this. The idea of communion as a mere remembrance is an innovation that is roughly 400 years old at this point. I don't understand how it happens scientifically, nobody does. Then again, I don't understand how raising the dead happens scientifically either. Just take Him at His word.
I would submit that is not what John 6 says or suggests. In John 6:35, 48, and 51, Jesus uses figurative language to describe himself as "the bread of life" and "the living bread that came down from heaven." In John 6:53-56, Jesus uses figurative language to describe his flesh as "real food" and his blood as "real drink". He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating real flesh and drinking real blood. Jesus's words in John 6:53-56 are a symbolic reference to believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus's words in John 6:56 describe a mutual abiding between Jesus and the believer. This union gives life, including the forgiveness of sins and communion with God.
I would submit that is not what John 6 says or suggests. In John 6:35, 48, and 51, Jesus uses figurative language to describe himself as "the bread of life" and "the living bread that came down from heaven." In John 6:53-56, Jesus uses figurative language to describe his flesh as "real food" and his blood as "real drink". He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating real flesh and drinking real blood. Jesus's words in John 6:53-56 are a symbolic reference to believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus's words in John 6:56 describe a mutual abiding between Jesus and the believer. This union gives life, including the forgiveness of sins and communion with God.
Mothra said:
You said:
We disagree here. Scripture can be interpreted and understood by the individual believer. There is no need for a priest, a pope, or some church father from hundreds or thousands of years ago to interpret it for us. We can go directly to the source.
This is how you end up with sola scriptura turning in to sola opinionata and tens of thousands of protestant sects that disagree with each other. It invariably ends up with people 2,000 years after the fact imposing their modernist lens on what the Bible says. So yes, we disagree. Scriptures should be read and understood by the individual, but in the context of what the church has held to be true.
Think about what you're saying here. The individual can say I've put my faith in Christ, I've received my boarding pass to heaven, and not to be part of the body of Christ or bear fruit in any meaningful way here on earth?
The individual can say? It appears you are concerned about false converts. I am talking about individuals who truly put their faith in Christ - like the thief on the cross, or the sinful woman who anointed Christ, who He said that her faith had saved her. Those are indeed part of the Church - the body of believers.
You're reading more into my comments than what I am saying.
The individual can say? It appears you are concerned about false converts. I am talking about individuals who truly put their faith in Christ - like the thief on the cross, or the sinful woman who anointed Christ, who He said that her faith had saved her. Those are indeed part of the Church - the body of believers.
You're reading more into my comments than what I am saying.
He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating flesh and blood on a biochemical level. The church has always held this to be a supernatural mystery, with the specific method by which Christ is present in the elements to be beyond scientific explanation. What you describe is the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation.Mothra said:
The question here is whether or not the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. This was the clear teaching of Christ in John 6. Moreover, it is what Christians believed and taught for the first millenium and a half of Church history. Even Martin Luther believed this. The idea of communion as a mere remembrance is an innovation that is roughly 400 years old at this point. I don't understand how it happens scientifically, nobody does. Then again, I don't understand how raising the dead happens scientifically either. Just take Him at His word.
I would submit that is not what John 6 says or suggests. In John 6:35, 48, and 51, Jesus uses figurative language to describe himself as "the bread of life" and "the living bread that came down from heaven." In John 6:53-56, Jesus uses figurative language to describe his flesh as "real food" and his blood as "real drink". He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating real flesh and drinking real blood. Jesus's words in John 6:53-56 are a symbolic reference to believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus's words in John 6:56 describe a mutual abiding between Jesus and the believer. This union gives life, including the forgiveness of sins and communion with God.
For more context.
Actually, the way we ended up with sola scriptura and a thousand protestant sects is an extremely corrupt and power-hungry Catholic Church that abused its power over a period of centuries, and warped the Word of God to fit its schemes. It then killed those who wanted to learn directly from scripture, instead of some fallible church father. That is the true culprit.Realitybites said:Mothra said:
You said:
We disagree here. Scripture can be interpreted and understood by the individual believer. There is no need for a priest, a pope, or some church father from hundreds or thousands of years ago to interpret it for us. We can go directly to the source.
This is how you end up with sola scriptura turning in to sola opinionata and tens of thousands of protestant sects that disagree with each other. It invariably ends up with people 2,000 years after the fact imposing their modernist lens on what the Bible says. So yes, we disagree. Scriptures should be read and understood by the individual, but in the context of what the church has held to be true.
There is no infallible church. You've admitted yourself that the Catholic Church is corrupt and warped.
I will take a look. But I see no evidence in scripture that the church "has always held this to be a supernatural mystery." There are no contemporaneous writings with Acts outside of scripture. You have to look at extra biblical sources written more than a couple of hundred years later to arrive at this conclusion.Realitybites said:He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating flesh and blood on a biochemical level. The church has always held this to be a supernatural mystery, with the specific method by which Christ is present in the elements to be beyond scientific explanation. What you describe is the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation.Mothra said:
The question here is whether or not the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. This was the clear teaching of Christ in John 6. Moreover, it is what Christians believed and taught for the first millenium and a half of Church history. Even Martin Luther believed this. The idea of communion as a mere remembrance is an innovation that is roughly 400 years old at this point. I don't understand how it happens scientifically, nobody does. Then again, I don't understand how raising the dead happens scientifically either. Just take Him at His word.
I would submit that is not what John 6 says or suggests. In John 6:35, 48, and 51, Jesus uses figurative language to describe himself as "the bread of life" and "the living bread that came down from heaven." In John 6:53-56, Jesus uses figurative language to describe his flesh as "real food" and his blood as "real drink". He is not telling Christians that they are cannibals, eating real flesh and drinking real blood. Jesus's words in John 6:53-56 are a symbolic reference to believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus's words in John 6:56 describe a mutual abiding between Jesus and the believer. This union gives life, including the forgiveness of sins and communion with God.
For more context.
Mothra said:
Actually, the way we ended up with sola scriptura and a thousand protestant sects is an extremely corrupt and power-hungry Catholic Church that abused its power over a period of centuries, and warped the Word of God to fit its schemes. It then killed those who wanted to learn directly from scripture, instead of some fallible church father. That is the true culprit.
It did that. It sacked Constantinople. It killed Christian converts among the Aleuts and native tribes on the west coast who had been evangelized by the Russians long before the United States expanded into its present footprint.
Quote:
There is no infallible church. You've admitted yourself that the Catholic Church is corrupt and warped.
Yes on both counts. But there is the original church, and it still exists on earth today...and as both Roman Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical churches collapse in the West, it is seeing explosive growth. It has preserved the faith once delivered to the saints...and a Christian in 2025 is much better off looking backwards to that faith rather than trying to reverse engineer it using Bible verses.
Take the issue of fasting, for example. Despite Jesus saying that his disciples would fast after his departure and that certain exorcisms can only occur with prayer and fasting, modern evangelicalism has made it entirely optional. Do you think that is wise?
We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.Mothra said:I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.Sam Lowry said:True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.Mothra said:God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.
Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
Sam Lowry said:
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
I agree. However, with every passing century, Roman Catholic tradition diverges ever further from what the Church of the First Millenium - guided by the Holy Spirit and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the first of which was documented in Acts - held to be true. Christianity in the West is collapsing. We have to go back.
Realitybites said:Sam Lowry said:
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
I agree. However, with every passing century, Roman Catholic tradition diverges ever further from what the Church of the First Millenium - guided by the Holy Spirit and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the first of which was documented in Acts - held to be true. Christianity in the West is collapsing. We have to go back.
Back to what?
Sam Lowry said:We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.Mothra said:I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.Sam Lowry said:True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.Mothra said:God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.
Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.
We've had some bad leadership, not for the first time in history. God will guide and preserve us as he always has.Realitybites said:Sam Lowry said:
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
I agree. However, with every passing century, Roman Catholic tradition diverges ever further from what the Church of the First Millenium - guided by the Holy Spirit and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the first of which was documented in Acts - held to be true. Christianity in the West is collapsing. We have to go back.
Quote:
We've had some bad leadership, not for the first time in history. God will guide and preserve us as he always has.
Hasn't been guiding and preserving your institution since it was founded in 1054 A.D.
The children of God are those who follow the leading of his Spirit and share in Christ's suffering by putting to death the ways of the flesh (Romans 8:12-17).D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.Mothra said:I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.Sam Lowry said:True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.Mothra said:God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.Sam Lowry said:No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?Sam Lowry said:
"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.
Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.
Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.
The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.
The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.
Obviously we're not going to agree on that. The RCC today is the same Church that it was before the Eastern Schism.Realitybites said:Quote:
We've had some bad leadership, not for the first time in history. God will guide and preserve us as he always has.
Hasn't been guiding and preserving your institution since it was founded in 1054 A.D.
Unfortunately the RCC isn't even the same church that it was before the Vatican 2 council of 1962-1965, let alone the great schism of 1054.Sam Lowry said:Obviously we're not going to agree on that. The RCC today is the same Church that it was before the Eastern Schism.Realitybites said:Quote:
We've had some bad leadership, not for the first time in history. God will guide and preserve us as he always has.
Hasn't been guiding and preserving your institution since it was founded in 1054 A.D.