Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Root of Jesse]

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...

so "I am the Vine, you are the branches" means what, to you?

 

[samir]

He created one Church, which is universal. Catholic means universal. Therefore, that's Christ's Church, which began on Pentecost...

I see. The Catholic Church 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

Which Church is that? It looks like you ruled out the Catholic Church since it didn't begin until Pentecost and Jesus said to take it to the Church prior to Pentecost when the Catholic Church didn't exist.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

so "I am the Vine, you are the branches" means what, to you?

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.

 

[pescador]

Very mature answer.

She has wisdom!

 

[pescador]

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.

This was not written to Christians, since Jesus never spoke a word to Christians during his time on earth. It is directed at Palestinian Jews.

After Christ died and was resurrected Christians became a part of his body. There is no more "vine and branches" regarding believers, and nobody will be pruned from the body of Jesus Christ. God will not amputate any part of his son.

I have said this a million times: before you take something from the Bible out of context you must first know to whom it was written, when it was written, and why it was written.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This was not written to Christians, since Jesus never spoke a word to Christians during his time on earth. It is directed at Palestinian Jews.

Whatever dude ... irmc

 

[pescador]

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.

The Bible is about the entire history of God's people, not just the first generation of the church. It begins with the creation of the Earth and heavens, then the creation of humanity, then the formation of God's people from Abraham all the way through to the minor prophets, then the Gospels, then acts of the apostles and the formation of the various churches, ending in Revelation. Your statement that "the Bible is only about the first generation of the Church" is so wrong it's amazing.

Jesus did NOT make Peter the head of the apostles; he was one of them only. If you had to name a leader of the early church it would probably be James, the Lord's brother. Peter was a flawed, erratic person who went from confessing the Messiah to denying him.

If you do read the Bible every day then focus on what it says not what you want it to say, particularly about the Catholic church. If you disagree that the Bible is the only word of God, then what else is there? The teaching of fallible men?

 

[pescador]

Whatever dude ... irmc

So you don't think it's important to understand what the Bible really means?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So you don't think it's important to understand what the Bible really means?

It's important to follow Christ so no matter what the head says the body is being spoken to.

 

[Berean777]

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.

Jesus being the Chief Priest created one church having a discipleship fellowship, without hierarchy and without a perishable and transferable chief priesthood that your religious institution operates by as its framework. Jesus did not hedge his bets on another Pharisaical like modelled earthly institution.

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.

You make the faith the worldly institution and in this regard this is fallacious.

Your double standard fallacy is as follows.......

The faith is infallible which is a true premise......
The outward worldly religious institution is the faith which is a false premise.....

Therefore the institution is infallible which is a faulty conclusion based on a false premise that the institution is the faith.

No where in scripture does Jesus credit the faith to a worldly institution having a hierarchical structure, with a different chiefly priesthood than his non transferable Kingly Chief Priesthood. Please, stop using the phrase you are the rock and on this Cornerstone I will build my church. Please, we had enough of conflating of out of context reasons given by the religious, seriously, enough it is now stale without flavour and lost its appeal forever. You see the telling of a lie repeatedly by the religious institution or any institution for that matter, in the hope that it will be believed by gullible people as the truth, is now becoming tact-singly boring! Boring! Boring!

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.

The faith isn't a worldly religious institution, otherwise Jesus would have prophesied as he did to what happened of the old worldly religious institution, that was centred around temple worship as this modern one is modelled after as well. Jesus prophesied.....

Not one rock shall be left upon another......

Jesus would have detailed exactly how his future church would be like and no where in his testimony, neither his disciples, neither the apostles, mentions an outward, worldly religious entity that would in a wholesome way encompass the entire faith in its on clave and then some more, by the brazen act of creating a hierarchy and a chief priesthood that is in place of the Kingly Chief Priesthood of Christ Jesus. To me it looks like the plagerisation of the faith to install different management/shepherds in place of the one true and faithful shepherd Jesus Christ.

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.

The claim that Jesus foresaw a need of a hierarchical structure from an authority point of view is unfounded in scripture. There is no instance in scripture and from the mouth of the Lord that he said that a Pharisaical like hierarchical authority is required to police the flock. In fact he lombasted the very structure of that authority calling them all sorts of profound labels like you brood bunch of vipers, who ever told you that you will escape the damnation of hell and so forth. The very act of Jesus separating himself from the hierarchical authority of the church, the ekklessia of that time, is highly suggestive that his future established church would absolutely bear no resemblance to the system of religious hierarchy that he lombasted and said..... Look here, now your house is left onto you desolate. Jesus wasn't talking about just the Pharisaical institution, with Abraham as its head, rather he declared the whole hierarchy as insolvent and one that would be replaced by a completely different flatter and functionally oriented structure that he called discipleship, that is to make disciples of all the world. If you draw your analogy that the Pharisaical church had as you are trying to credit to your religious institution all the faith from their father Abraham. You and your institution or others in that matter are certainly not in a position as the pharisess were, to make such outlandish claims of having the same authorship of the faith as if the religious institution is the faith itself.

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

You see, even though your religious institution doesn't have what the Pharisical institution had as the church of those days, which all scholars agree upon, they would realise that their priesthood office was all sacked from their chief priesthood to their least and it was replaced by the kingly chief priesthood Melchizedek. Jesus made that institution insolvent and never to rise up again. However, John prophesied and saw a future lamb/Christ like second man/beast religious system, emerging to encompass the globe and that he takes away the daily sacrifice which is Jesus Christ and institutes his abomination in his place and practices it for a long, long period of time until the Lord exposes this fraudster. In fact it is also prophesied that the very elect will be given into his hands for a time, time and half a time, until the Lord removes the vail of darkness away from the eyes of his elect that once accepted such a man made institution, without questioning its intent and purpose.

Below is the prophesy of the new administration (Christ's Church), under the Kingly Chief Priest Christ Jesus. So the old administration/hierarchy was forever replaced after Christ sat in the Holy of Holies to intercede on our behaves.

19I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position. In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim (Jesus Christ to come) son of Hilkiah. 21I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. (Isaiah 22:19-24)


Jesus did build a church, yet the hierarchy of that church is completely opposite to the hierarchy of the Pharisical institution or the 2 horned lamb/Christ like man/beast religious worldly institution. The motto of Jesus's church is.....

The greatest amongst you is your servant.

This statement therefore underpins the structure of his church and it would not be patented after the Pharisical model, where there were authoritative figures policing the sheep, rather from the greatest to the least will know their God and need not be policed or forced to knowing their God. The religious inward institution that Jesus setup was based on the faithful intrinsically being motivated to own their faith and to self discover the truth, through banqueting with Christ, heart to heart, in their life long rehabilitation/sanctification journey. The owner of the faith becomes the individual and it is the degree of grace that is apportioned to that individual by God that sees that faithful finish their own race and to keep the faith as Paul would instruct the discipleship. The greatest position is that of giving and not one of authority from a worldly authority perspective and here lies the contrasting difference between the church that Jesus setup and your religious institution, that places itself as authors of the faith.

Again, you confuse the faith with the institution. I know it's hard, but pay attention.

No, I'm not the one confused brother, because as I have been repeatedly saying to you that the OUTWARDLY worldly religious institution that is setup, that has been modelled after the Pharisical religious authority hierarchical structure is NOT THE FAITH. No religious institution can claim the authorship of the faith as no human administration has authority to establish an earthly Chief Priesthood in place of Christ's non transferable and permanent office that he holds on earth and in heaven. Brother the old administration had been changed when Christ ascended into heaven, in the Holy of Holies to minister and to intercede on our behalves, who represent his spiritual church/body members. Your religious institution has no authority to go into the Holy of Holies which it can't anyway, but to lie and to claim that it can, when offering Christ Jesus as the sacrifice, are thereby instituting a practice that removes Christ's office as our One and only Chief Priest who had entered in with his own blood. This abominable practice is one that has a sinful man pretending to enter the Holy of Holies with Christ Jesus as the lamb to be sacrificed repeatedly. This practice is not how Christ directed us to remember him by, that is we are to do it in remembrance and never to presume that we are sacrificing him all over again, according to how the levitical priests pretended to do so, whenever entering the Holy of Holies once a year to offer the blood of lambs and goats. Again this repeated practice is similar to the old abolished administration under the abolished Chief Priesthood, that was replaced by the permanent and non transferable Melchizedek priesthood of Christ Jesus who is our High Priest because he had been sworn in by an oath, by God the Father and who is declared indestructible life.

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.

My dear brother you know that this is a plead to ignorance.

Let me ask you one question, under which priesthood do you serve ?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

1900 years ago, there was very little written.

I believe all the books of the NT were written by 1900 years ago.

It was mostly spoken. The reason Paul's letters, and the gospels were considered Scripture is that they were read during worship.

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.

The Catholic Church is who determined what was in the Bible.

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.

How does something done 1600 years ago give people today any special authority?

And to this day, we are the protector of Sacred Scripture.

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.

Does the RCC own all modern translations of the Bible? Does the RCC own all research into new texts found? There is plenty of good Bible work being done by those outside of the RCC.

 

[Berean777]

Completely wrong. There was nothing wrong with God's faith, which he instituted. What was wrong was the people administering the faithful.

According to Jesus, the Pharisical temple centred religious institution under the old Chief Priesthood was very wrong, was so incomplete that statements that Jesus made about it charged it with the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, which actually sums it all.

Jesus said......

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.32Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. (Matthew 23:29-36)

It is self evident that the Lord hated what this administration stood for from its onset and what administration to we have today?

The very image of that same mother harlot, brought back to life all over again, much to its condemnation, along with its abominable practices.

Here is why the old system was incomplete and inept to do anything for man's salvation.....

18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)

What was wrong with it you say..... Hmmmm.........brother come on please!

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.

I beg to differ, in that the Roman version of Christainity was not being persecuted and was not underground, but it existed alongside of Rome as the 2 horned Christ like entity. The Christains who were being persecuted and killed were not Roman citizens, because the law of Rome prevented the death of Roman's in barbaric fashion and on Roman soil. The public persecutions and killings were done to other none Roman Christains. In fact when Paul stated in one appeal to a caesar that he was a Roman citizen, that very much stayed his execution right there and then and this is further grounded reasoning and proof that the Roman religious authority stood alongside of Rome and never was under threat or reprisal. In fact what Constantine did was make it appealing to the wealthy and powerful and by so doing built up great monuments, that would universalise the faith as far as Romans were concerned. My conclusions are very much on base and you know it brother.

 

[Berean777]

Yah they kinda inherited their own country didn't they

Constantine 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.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Constantine 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.

Interesting

 

[MrMoe]

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.

That's how I interpret it. Peter made himself an adversary to God when he said "Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee." It was always God's will that Jesus should die, and Peter was speaking against it.
Peter was being carnal minded rather than spiritually minded, that is why Jesus said "for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

 

[Berean777]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Name me a religious institution that doesn't have any blood on its hands.

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 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?

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 know, to some degree, every pastor alive is pharisaical, to one degree or another...

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.

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.

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.

 

[MrMoe]

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."

You're basically saying the same thing, you just worded it differently.

Satan is a Hebrew word which means "enemy", "adversary" or "to show enmity to, oppose, plot against," . Peter made himself an adversary to God when he said "Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee." It was always God's will that Jesus should die, and Peter was speaking against it.
Peter was being carnal minded rather than spiritually minded, that is why Jesus said "for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

So Jesus was basically saying to Peter "Get behind me adversary." Now lets try your version: "Peter, you are (the) adversary, and I need you to get behind me." You're saying the same thing, just worded differently.

Jesus called Peter, Satan, there's no getting around it.

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."

Jesus could have easily said "you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church," but He didn't, which is very interesting.
Instead He said "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,"
From what I've heard, not all the ECF believed that the rock is referring to Peter. Some believed it was Peter's testimony, some believed it was Jesus Himself. I believe "this rock" Jesus is referring to is Peter's testimony, not Peter himself.

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!”).

Peter's statement may have been influenced by Satan himself, but there is no proof of that in the verses. Jesus statement can be seen as evidence but it's not conclusive.

 

[sculleywr]

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.

We can easily point out the horrible people turned out from abandonment of the Christian Church.

The fact is that because the "product" is humans, and they are responsible for their OWN ACTIONS, you're going to expect imperfections. In point of fact, just like when an investigator is suspicious when he comes across a person with a completely spotless record with information about a drug cartel's internal workings, people who seem to have mastered the practice of sinlessness are unlikely to be perfect.

When I was a child, I was raised by two very loving, devoted parents who did not deprive me of life, including very strict discipline. Their methods with me were pretty much the same as they were with my sister. While she is imperfect, and makes mistakes out of her immaturity, she is a good kid. On the other hand, I was a complete and total nightmare on steroids. I rebelled, and rebelled hard. I'm 28 now and still repairing the bridges that I didn't just burn, but nukes with a Tsar Bomba. It is not their fault that I turned into that nightmare. You do not blame the parents UNLESS you can prove that they intended for me to become that way.

In the same way, the Church has turned out many great people. Many amazing people. It was Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians who were instrumental in the rescue and protection of thousands of Jews during the holocaust. It was Orthodox Christians who were spoken of by Roman historians in the time of plague. The Romans said these Christians, unlike the pagan priests, would turn their houses into clinics for the sick, tending to the ill and dying. They were so devoted that Tertullian said they were becoming ill and dying themselves, refusing care because they saw it as their mission to tend to the sick as God commanded, no matter the cost to themselves. It is Orthodox Christians who are ignoring the Israeli military's orders to not rescue bombing victims in the Gaza Strip, digging through rubble to find children, mothers, and other victims of both HAMAS and the Israeli Defense Force. The Bishop located at St. Porphyrios Church in the Strip has seen his church become the target of IDF bombs, and despite this he still is taking in refugees and helping them find places to live.

You say that you blame the manufacturer, but here's the problem, they were manufactured by God. He made them in the womb. The Church is not the manufacturer. It is simply the middleman between the Manufacturer and the world.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The issue is believing on Him that who purifies the convert by faith, and justifieth the ungodly, so that "his faith is counted for righteousness," (Rm. 4:5) and thus spiritually is made to sit together with Christ in Heaven, and whose spirit will directly go to be with Him after death, (Lk. 23:42,43; Acts 7:59; 20:6; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23,34; 1Ths. 4:17) and with works justifying one as having true faith, being saved.

"Rome believes all of it. Keep studying if you don't believe."

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."

Justification in RC theology is not that of the contrite sinner being declared justified as righteous, as Abraham, (Gn. 15:6) the penitent publican were (Lk. 18:10-14) and thus the contrite criminal was saved, (Lk. 23:39-43) none of which were actually, practically made good enough to be with God at that moment.

Instead, justification in RC theology mean one is conformed to the righteousness of God via baptism: "Justification is conferred in Baptism [ex opere operato', by "virtue of the rite" as the "instrumental cause of grace"], the sacrament of faith [even if one cannot hace faith]. It conforms us to the righteousness of God." (CCC 2020) Which renders one "immaculate...so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven." (Trent, Ses. 5)

Yet while sending the newly baptized convert to Heaven if he died before sinning, they afterwards need to merit and cooperate with grace, (CCC 2010) by God's grace (ordinarily dispensed via rituals to properly disposed souls), with sanctifying grace being "that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God," (CCC 2000) and thus attain eternal life.

And thus by God's grace they become actually good enough to be with God, as they were at baptism, even though the latter yet possess an unclean sinful nature with its propensity to sin, while using the prohibition of anything unclean entering into the Holy City, (Rv. 21:27) and "be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect," (Mt. 5:8) it is taught that one must be cleansed of all character defects, attachment to sin, self-love, etc. in order to see (though the Orthodox tend to deny anyone can do so, except as Christ manifests Him) and be with God.

It is one thing to believe that God rewards obedience which He enabled and motivated, with "merit" being understood as owed to man only because God promised man that, and God does such according to a believers own labor in quality and quantity in building His church, (1Co. 3:7ff) and another thing to believe that the gift of eternal life itself - which is contrasted with what the lost actually merit (Rm. 6:23) - is merited by works themselves and enabled by becoming good enough to be with God, even if it is attributed to God's grace.

In contrast is that of believers being counted worthy of salvation in the light of works which testify to saving faith, which confidence has great recompense of reward, and thus the many exhortations to not fall away in unbelief, but believe to the saving of the soul, (Heb. 3:12; 10:35-39) and thereby keep the Lord's works to the end, (Rv. 2:26) versus the effect of saving faith being what appropriates justification.

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)

James 2 isn't the only verse that says works are necessary. Paul taught justification by works multiple times in his epistles.

Not in the Catholic sense, but that one will be saved by an obedient faith. As in,
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)

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.

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.

It doesn't appear like you understand the purification after death.

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.

"Which again means that by the grace of God I earned the gift of eternal life."

Absolutely not! The RCC condemns that view.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Not sure what you're talking about. You seem confused about the Law.

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.

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.

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:

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)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So you don't really believe in Sola Scriptura, you think that Scriptural preaching is valid. Good. That's what we believe

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.

".All Church Doctrine is wholly inspired.

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.

" There is no new revelation, by the way, only deeper understanding of revelation.""

Which is one of the qualities that separate Rome from wholly inspired apostles and Scripture.

"Has ever done what?"

No Roman pope (versus Peter) or council spoke as wholly inspired of God.