- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
so "I am the Vine, you are the branches" means what, to you?As we are to mature in faith, but there's no hierarchy in that.Your analogies seem only intended to protect your church and never the Word. There's so much scripture that I could quote but I`m sure you know them all. However not being on the side of that scripture by placing yourself outside of the word and aligned with what... manmade words...
He created one Church, which is universal. Catholic means universal. Therefore, that's Christ's Church, which began on Pentecost...
But he knew there needed to be a hierarchy. He said "If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." (big-time paraphrase) That Church had authority
That we are to abide in Him and not get cut off and burnt, while still being saved but as thru fire. Abiding is the way.so "I am the Vine, you are the branches" means what, to you?
Very mature answer.
That we are to abide in Him and not get cut off and burnt, while still being saved but as thru fire. Abiding is the way.
John 15:4
Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Whatever dude ... irmcThis was not written to Christians, since Jesus never spoke a word to Christians during his time on earth. It is directed at Palestinian Jews.
The Bible is only about the first generation of the Church. But Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles, and they showed it by the way they reacted to him.
You need to learn comprehension, friend. The apostles, including Peter, ran away. They were, still, to lead the Church out of the age of Christ, and Christ told us that His Church would last until the end of the age.
I do read my Bible, every day. I disagree that the Bible is the only word of God.
Whatever dude ... irmc
It's important to follow Christ so no matter what the head says the body is being spoken to.So you don't think it's important to understand what the Bible really means?
You think Christ hedged his bets because he didn't know what would happen? Yes, He created one Church, which is universal. Catholic means universal. Therefore, that's Christ's Church, which began on Pentecost.
You keep confusing the institution with the faith. Faith is what Christ provided, one Truth, one Faith, one Lord. The institution is only infallible in matters of faith because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, some leaders sin, but that does not negate the Truth of the faith.
Yeah, he didn't put his eggs in an institution. He put his eggs in a faith. One Faith, one Truth, one Baptism, one Lord.
I agree. But he knew there needed to be a hierarchy. He said "If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." (big-time paraphrase) That Church had authority.
Again, you confuse the faith with the institution. I know it's hard, but pay attention.
Actually, I have no problem separating the institution from the faith. Sometimes, the institution is just plain wrong. But the faith has never changed, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.
I believe all the books of the NT were written by 1900 years ago.1900 years ago, there was very little written.
And so you profess that the NT was circulated in the early church well before the "Bible" was declared by you. Further, you say it was even considered Scripture before you made the Bible.It was mostly spoken. The reason Paul's letters, and the gospels were considered Scripture is that they were read during worship.
So the early church was doing fine reading the apostles' letters as Scripture. But, for some reason 300 years later the Catholic Church was having problems and false teachings crept in the keepers of truth. So, the keepers of truth had to clean house and throw out all the false books that were used mistakenly.The Catholic Church is who determined what was in the Bible.
Now the boasting part. What support do you have that you are "the"/only protector of Scripture? It appears just a claim to some special authority.And to this day, we are the protector of Sacred Scripture.
Completely wrong. There was nothing wrong with God's faith, which he instituted. What was wrong was the people administering the faithful.
The problem here is that the religious institution, the Catholic Church was being persecuted by the Romans. The Romans believe the Jewish and Christian faiths were the same. The Catholic Church was, by and large, underground, as an acorn is underground until it sprouts into a tree. Once the Catholic Church was legalized by Constantine, it needed a coherent authority. That authority was the pope and hierarchy. The early popes were martyred shortly after their election. But once Constantine legalized Christianity, which was the Catholic Church, and left Rome for Constantinople, the hierarchy was left to run the temporal government of Rome. That doesn't mean that the Church is "Rome". Therefore, your conclusions are pretty far off base.
Yah they kinda inherited their own country didn't they
InterestingConstantine universalised the faith for Rome and yet it stood by Rome all along and was immune from persecution, because Rome's legislation prevented Roman citizens from being killed for their faith, especially on Roman soil. Sure there may have been instances that certain members of the institution would break the laws to mandate harsh penalties, similar to today's terrorist acts or those wanting to over throw governments. The overthrowing of the Roman government or infiltrating in it by the religious institution was finally accomplished through Comstantines administration who rallied power brokers to the cause and in so doing through selfish ambitions bolstered his war efforts and his supreme reign. It was a King and King maker mentality played out in spades, all the while none Roman Christains continued to be persecuted even after Constantine universalised the faith, because politically they weren't Roman Catholics and in so doing Christainty and Roman Catholic were two entirely different entities with different privileges and this is fact my friends.
Since Satan means enemy, there is a meaning here, that Peter had made himself an enemy if he were to hold to what he had said. The point here is that when we choose sinful things, or try to advise people to do sinful things, we become the enemy of God.
By your logic, the car is responsible for the action. That's wrong. Hitler created the Nazi Party, Saddam created his dictatorship. Wrong. The persons are responsible for their crimes. not the Institution, unless the institution demanded directly that they be done.
It's you who thinks the institution has blood on its hands, but you really would have to prove that. Even if the institution did, the faith didn't suffer at all, and the faith is what I'm here to discuss.
Name me a religious institution that doesn't have any blood on its hands.
The institution didn't shed the blood of Abel. And neither did the institution kill the prophets and judges. The institution didn't even kill Jesus. The Pharisees did that. Do you blame the Jewish faith for killing Jesus?
You know, to some degree, every pastor alive is pharisaical, to one degree or another...
Infallibility only extends to the faith. Even one who is wickedly sinful can be infallible regarding the faith of Jesus.
In fact, even the wickedest of Popes never got the faith wrong.
He looked at Peter and said "Get behind me Satan". He didn't say "Peter, you are Satan, and I need you to get behind me."
He said to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."
Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”).
We can easily point out the horrible people turned out from abandonment of the Christian Church.No, the manufacturer of the car is responsible for a faulty product, that is by in large contributed by the manufacturing process of the plant.
An institution is the manufacturing plant, the product is the fruit/works thereoff and the assembly line workers are those to whom the manufacturing plant instructs to follow the assembly process.
Now, the religious institution has fault from within, when not one, two or three workers of the plant carry out the assembly process, but that generations which encompassed a time period no less than 1000 years. It is like a car manufacturer continuing to produce faulty products/fruits/works for over a 1000 years.
That is why the previous pope apologised for those very years that resulted in faulty workmenship.
As a result the conclusion would make the processes of the religious institution at fault. The religious institution must therefore carry the burden of fault and not to blame it on the plant workers who carried out what was expected of them to carry out.
So in this regard the religious institution itself is proven to be fallible.
The institution is not the faith, that is it cannot claim to be the definite article, no more than a religious institution to claim it is love. The very definite article places only Jesus Christ as the faithful shepherd. The previous pope apologised and acknowledged the institutional faults of the past and this is evidence that one pope tried to at least come clean to admit that there was problems with the institution's past policies. So when a religious
institution has fault, this doesn't affect the faithfullness of Christ who is the only infallibleand sinless being. This means that the institution, no different to a car manufacturing plant that produces faulty products must acknowledge that it is found to be fallible and had over a time period of many centuries distanced themselves from the faithful shepherd Jesus Christ by the faulty workmenship, resulting in faulty fruits.
Very good question, there is none, which further corroborates why an outward temple centred hierarchical institution is not what Jesus had intended to built. He didn't want the same of the Pharisically modelled institution that he disassociated himself from.
The very point that Jesus made concerning the entire Pharisical institution is that he charged it from the creation until the last of the old testament prophets Zechariah, to be responsible for the murders. The Pharisees obviously didn't kill Abel, but the spirit that the institution stood for did, from a spiritual sense. So Jesus right there and then had declared the institution as the access of evil, whereby it prevented people to coming to God directly and also would not listen to God. The religious institution of today is no different and are equally liable of the same charge that Jesus had laid upon the Pharisical religious institution.
Jesus attacked the institution and what it stood for, not singling out any Pharisee in particular.
You shall know them by their works. Either they lead people to self discover Christ Jesus or they become obstacles in the way, by preventing the faithful to be independent followers of Christ who end up owning their faith through intrinsically motivated factors and not one that is continually relying on transmission teaching. Once you take the horse to water, then let them drink accordingly and don't prevent the process. God is the teacher who sanctifies in the life long journey of individuals who seek him with all their hearts. The banquet is dependent on individual hearts coming to Jesus and not an institution claiming the right to force feed as the one and only source or venue for the banquet.
If your statement implies that they carried out what was expected of them, then you also implicate the religious institution in their crimes. The faith is the definite article who is Jesus Christ, so if popes carried out their office as chief priests in opposition to the one and only chief priest office of Jesus, then that cannot be the faith friend.
Again any religious institution that does not conform to the faith who is Christ Jesus our one and only Chief Priest, that institution has no faith. Therefore a religious institution stands as a fallible institution, plagerising its way throughout history by assuming possession of what it doesn't have.
Rather, it is I who provided the documentation to the contrary, and the only way Rome believes God purifies the convert by faith is by baptism, even for subjects who cannot believe, and rather the unGodly being justified by his faith being counted/imputed for righteousness," he is justified because he actually is good enough to be with God (even though he still has an unclean sinful nature) and the only way his spirit will directly go to be with Him after death is if he dies having perfection of character,, with no attachment to sin, etc., "perfect as your Heavenly Father is.""Rome believes all of it. Keep studying if you don't believe."
The verses you quote disprove your own claims. If Paul taught justification by faith without works he would have said that instead of writing more words to only exclude specific works (works of the law of Moses) thereby proving Paul thought other works (not following the law of Moses) were required.
Wrong again, as he did exclude all works without qualification as actually obtaining a right, justified standing with God and being saved by. (Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8,9)
According to your logic, Paul should have clarified such statements as above by saying, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works of our own strength, lest any man should boast, but by works of faith.'
Moreover, Paul easily could have and would have invoked the good character and works of Abraham, that was before the Law, as obtaining justification, but does not. But he invokes the law as it being the standard for justification by works. For as said, "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
However, Paul also taught that it only be those of such faith that effected works that would be saved, and who are justified by works as attesting to be true believers.
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Romans 2:13)
Not in the Catholic sense, but that one will be saved by an obedient faith. As in,James 2 isn't the only verse that says works are necessary. Paul taught justification by works multiple times in his epistles.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye [effectually] keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)
No, not under the Catholic gospel, for the man who died at 100 would not only need to be forgiven, but atone for sins he did not sufficiently atone for while on earth, and attain to perfection of character. That is what happens when justification is based upon your perfect state of sanctification, that one must become practically good enough to be with God in this life or in purgatory, while the spirit of believers in Scripture went to be with the Lord at death, and the next event of any change they were told to look for was the resurrection.And which means that if a person died at conversion he would go to be with the Lord just he would if he died in effectual faith at age 100, but would have more crowns to lay at the feet of Jesus if the latter.
Rather, once again it is who have supplied the documentation of what Catholicism teaches, but which you try to dismiss as misunderstanding, while Catholicism (as including the Orthodox) it is not unified in this.It doesn't appear like you understand the purification after death.
"Which again means that by the grace of God I earned the gift of eternal life."
By defining what God calls a gift, in contrast to the wages that the lost earn, as something one merits, because God gives them the gift to do to so. What Rome condemns it conveys by such teaching as that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God truly merits the attainment of eternal life. (Canon 32)Absolutely not! The RCC condemns that view.
It is way way past time that you finally abandon the idea that one can believe and not obey, but the only way one goes to Heaven as a result of His actions is because they testify to his faith as salvific, not because his works, done by God's grace, made him actually good enough to be with God.If two people believe but one obeys (and goes to heaven) and the other doesn't (and goes to hell), then the one who obeyed merited salvation because God gave him eternal life as a result of his actions even though he didn't earn it.
You cannot have new converts going to Heaven without having done any works of merit, and then have the same entering glory because he has practically actually attained to being good enough, by Gods grace.
I had already read some of such, and myself affirmed God rewarding obedient believers whose works evidence true faith, though in reality only God deserves credit for such, but which is not that of "truly meriting eternal life by their very works sake."If you're still confused, look up the difference between earn and merit on a Catholic website. It's important if you want to understand Catholic teaching.
Eternal life is a gift appropriated by faith which produces works, not because they, even by God's grace, became practically good enough to be with God. The meek shall inherit the earth not because they are meek but because such fruit characterizes those of the faith. And thus believers are declared to be saved in the light of their works of faith, and which God rewards in addition to giving eternal life.
Under the law and in Catholicism you are justified based upon your performance, versus faith being counted for righteousness, by a faith that obtain purification and effects righteousness.Not sure what you're talking about. You seem confused about the Law.
Wrong: the Judaizers not only taught the necessity of following the ritual aspects but that one was justified by obedience to the Law (versus that fulfilling the righteousness of the law justified one as having faith). Thus Paul deals with the whole system of salvation under the Law, not simply rejecting the typological ritual aspects, nor teaching that another system of salvation by works (of faith) made one righteousness enough to enter Heaven:No, the Judaizers taught the necessity of following the ritual aspects that aren't binding upon Christians. Faith alone verses works of the Law is a false dichotomy - neither view is correct. The biblical teaching is faith and works of charity.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:21)
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Galatians 3:5-6)
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. (Galatians 3:10-12)
...that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:4-5)
Which ignores the distinction i made. Such preaching of Scriptural Truths as i affirmed does not claim to be the inspired word of God as Scripture is, and or is assuredly infallible and equal to Scripture, as uninspired men of Rome assert for her traditions of men.So you don't really believe in Sola Scriptura, you think that Scriptural preaching is valid. Good. That's what we believe
Wrong, and which is a mere argument by assertion. No Roman pope (versus Peter) or council spoke as wholly inspired of God, even according to RC theology.".All Church Doctrine is wholly inspired.
Which is one of the qualities that separate Rome from wholly inspired apostles and Scripture." There is no new revelation, by the way, only deeper understanding of revelation.""
No Roman pope (versus Peter) or council spoke as wholly inspired of God."Has ever done what?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?