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.
Sure if someone wants to speak- infallibly?- for the church on what Scripture is actually saying. We hardly come even close to that right here on this thread- even between those who use the bible as their sole rule of faith.That part of your statement could be seen as regarding doctrine/tradition vs what scripture is actually saying.
It's simple enough-because even the quotes you gave pretty well end up with the same meaning, especially when vs 13 finishes out the thought. And it's not the only passage relevant to the matter anyway. What bothers me most, however, is simply the ignorance of the gospel so prevalent these days that might cause someone like yourself to question whether or not salvation takes place as some one-time event that renders a person saved forever or whether or not human choices and actions after justification are still involved, whether or not we're obligated to be personally righteous IOW, with eternal life at stake.
The ancient churches have known and taught that we are so obligated and have this understanding, as an inheritance, with and also apart from the bible-before the NT was written for that matter.
It's also in the teachings and the sacraments and the conciliar decrees and ECF writings, and is the reason that most of the very doctrines that Sola Scriptura adherents may argue over between each other, as this thread, itself, testifies to, were settled from day one within the original church, or settled at council if controversies arose. Now with the Reformation and Sola Scriptura, we have the cafeteria plan of Christianity, with a whole potpourri of faith options.
Yep that's what he and all other Free Grace theology teachers I know of say. That this very exact version of the gospel causes God to save you. And if you don't have it exactly just right, that will cause God to send you to hell. That's the one aspect of it that bothers me.
Yes, we can always draw nearer to God.
There is only one Gospel.
"Christ died for your sin, was resurrected", and that message is the "preaching of the Cross".
So, this is John 3:16.
There is no other message that you can believe that will cause God to accept your faith, as this is the ONLY message that causes you to receive Christ, "by faith" so that God can accept you.
This is : Justification by FAITH. "Faith is counted as Righteousness".
You give God your faith in Jesus, and God gives you what He did on The Cross for you, John 3:16 = which is your Salvation". "The GIFT of Salvation".
There is only one Gospel.
"Christ died for your sin, was resurrected", and that message is the "preaching of the Cross".
So, this is John 3:16.
There is no other message that you can believe that will cause God to accept your faith, as this is the ONLY message that causes you to receive Christ, "by faith" so that God can accept you.
This is : Justification by FAITH. "Faith is counted as Righteousness".
You give God your faith in Jesus, and God gives you what He did on The Cross for you, John 3:16 = which is your Salvation". "The GIFT of Salvation".
Why do you think John 3:16 is about the cross?
Peter rebuked Jesus for telling them he had to die.
I went back and reviewed what I thought I heard and realized I misunderstood. Mainly what was being said is that inviting Jesus into your heart isn't how one gets saved, because it has nothing to do with believing that Christ died for your sin, was resurrected, and putting faith in that.
John 3:16 says that God gave His only begotten Son to the "world".
That is Jesus.
How was He Given?
He was given as the shed blood on the Cross.
Who do you think was on the Cross?
Why do you think God's Son was on it?
John 3:16
There are many good scholars that produce profitable works that can benefit us in our understanding of the faith in one manner or another-or in supporting one position or another. They can also vehemently disagree with each other on relevant matters. And this helps highlight the point. Our faith is not and must not be derived merely from the opinions of this highly educated bible scholar or that one, as if best exegesis is all it's about. Our faith is about an experience with God, primarily God the Son, and that experience and the knowledge given didn't result from a group of scholars poring over ancient or modern texts or archeological data et al. The apostles and disciples received this revelation and passed it down to others who would follow them.Most likely the major proponents of both sides of this issue have/had an equal level of education and knowledge. However they both accuse each other of ignorance and not rightly dividing the word.
That's good of course-and it's also good to know, on a unified and universal level, what, exactly He expects of us.As for me it doesn't matter much on a personal level, because I'm one of those who chooses to follow the commandments of Jesus, even if there was no heaven or hell. I even started a thread about that some time ago.
Again, the New Testament was written decades after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus-and His gospel was held and proclaimed before those writings existed nonetheless.There's ancient church doctrine that was established before Jesus, Peter, Paul and James etc? That is apart from scripture? What was it derived from then?
Heated debates have taken place and continue to this day. Sometimes important dogma has been hammered out at council due to controversies. Just as an example, due to the Pelagian controversy the church produced a declaration at council on the incontrovertible and absolute need for grace in order for man to be found, justified and saved. In any case theologians and ECFs as individuals are presumably never 100% correct in everything they hold and teach. But it's never been up to them-it's been up to the church to decide and speak on these matters, as the place where the buck stops. There is no such place in Protestantism. They point to the bible as authoritative-and then often disagree on what it means to say-since it can't necessarily speak up for itself and resolve questions when they arise. So it then really comes down to the reader answering his own questions, serving as pope or the authority in any case, for all practical purposes.So you're saying debates, disagreements and revisions etc never took place after day one, until the reformation? From what I've heard from church history and patristics experts (including Catholic ones), that's definitely not been the case at all.
On all the basics of the faith regarding salvation there's been a consistent unified teaching-even between the eastern and western churches after centuries of isolation. These are remarkably the same especially when compared to often widely divergent views to be found within Protestantism, based on Scripture alone.A brief current events search says: "The Pope's statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions".
There's hardly been rock solid doctrine, theology and policy since day one. Very far from it.
So is your answer an unequivocal yes?
There is only one Gospel.
"Christ died for your sin, was resurrected", and that message is the "preaching of the Cross".
So, this is John 3:16.
There is no other message that you can believe that will cause God to accept your faith, as this is the ONLY message that causes you to receive Christ, "by faith" so that God can accept you.
This is : Justification by FAITH. "Faith is counted as Righteousness".
You give God your faith in Jesus, and God gives you what He did on The Cross for you, John 3:16 = which is your Salvation". "The GIFT of Salvation".
There are many good scholars that produce profitable works that can benefit us in our understanding of the faith in one manner or another-or in supporting one position or another. They can also vehemently disagree with each other on relevant matters. And this helps highlight the point. Our faith is not and must not be derived merely from the opinions of one highly educated bible scholar or that one, as if best exegesis is all it's about. Our faith is about an experience with God, primarily God the Son, and that experience and the knowledge given didn't result from a group of scholars poring over ancient or modern texts or archeological data et al. The apostles and disciples received this revelation and passed it down to others who would follow them.
Many of the beliefs expressed here on this thread are really simply intellectual concepts, rightly or wrongly gleaned from scripture, sometimes based on a focused emphasis on isolated passages to the exclusion of others, and then stood on as if they were personal revelations from God.
That's good of course-and it's also good to know, on a unified and universal level, what, exactly He expects of us.
Again, the New Testament was written decades after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus-and His gospel was held and proclaimed before those writings nonetheless.
Heated debates have taken place and continue to this day. Sometimes important dogma has been hammered out at council due to controversies. Just as an example, due to the Pelagian controversy the church produced a declaration at council on the incontrovertible and absolute need for grace in order for man to be found, justified and saved. In any case theologians and ECFs as individuals are presumably never 100% correct in everything they hold and teach. But it's never been up to them-it's been up to the church to decide and speak on these matters, as the place where the buck stops. There is no such place in Protestantism. They point to the bible as authoritative-and then disagree on what it means to say-since it can't necessarily speak up for itself and resolve questions when they arise. So it then really comes down to the reader answering his own questions, serving as pope for all practical purposes.
On all the basics of the faith regarding salvation there's been a consistent unified teaching-even between the eastern and western churches after centuries of isolation. These are remarkably the same especially when compared to often widely divergent views to be found within Protestantism, based on Scripture alone.
The church has and will continue to deny the sacramentality of same sex unions-these lack the necessary ingredients to be considered a valid marriage in God's eyes- and the doctrine of infallibility only guarantees that no error will enter church teachings on faith and morals for the purpose of the salvation of man. The current pope has made no such changes in the teachings of the church.
Ok, if you'd prefer to believe that the gospel wasn't received, held, and preached before and apart from any NT writings, that's up to you I guess. I'm not sure why anyone should bother contesting it.Paul's letters were written as events occurred. Acts was most likely written before Paul's death, since Luke didn't mention it. And so it's just as likely that Luke wrote his gospel early on. There's a fragment of a copy of John's gospel that dates very close to the time of Christ. Really how long did any of the authors of the NT live past 33 AD? Certainly not decades after.
Yes, there are some individuals and denominations that are closer, some further. Some of those hold onto some of the traditional teachings, along with the conciliar, etc. The main point is that with Scripture alone it's a bit of a free-for-all, with many differing plausible positions often possible.I don't want to get off topic with a Catholicism vs Protestantism debate. There's certainly plenty of Protestants who have the view you've given regarding salvation.
Ok, if you'd prefer to believe that the gospel wasn't received, held, and preached before and apart from any NT writings, that's up to you I guess. I'm not sure why anyone should bother contesting it.
Yes, there are some individuals and denominations that are closer, some further. Some of those hold onto some of the traditional teachings, along with the conciliar, etc. The main point is that with Scripture alone it's a bit of a free-for-all, with many differing plausible positions often possible.
From my understanding Paul's letters were written 20 or so years after the death and resurrection of Jesus while the after first gospel was written about 40 years afterwards.
The word "dispensation", scares a lot of believers.
But this word, regarding the Holy Bible, only means that God changes things over the completed History of the bible, and we can SEE the changes.
For example, the NEW TESTAMENT, is not the OLD TESTAMENT....and that is a CHANGE.
So, these occurring changes are a season or a dispensation.
Someone decided to title these changes, "dispensations", and someone else decided they didn't like it.
However, that does not stop the Holy Bible from being a book of progressive revelation, that just keeps doing that, right till the end.
Therefore, if you want to be a teacher, try very hard to stick to Paul's writings, because Paul says the gentiles do have teachers.
I have some great news for you..
Its this.
Paul speaking..
See, what you do, is you learn what Paul teaches, as he wrote most of the NT.
Notice i keep saying this?
""
Ephesians 4:11-12
11 And God gave to the body , apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and TEACHERS;
And why, LIgurian??
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
So, that is why i am here.
Im one of those.
You said that there is more than one "gospel", in the time of the Gentiles"< and then you posted the only one.
Jesus said that He is THE WAY.
So, if you can find another one, ...... you've not found the right one.
If you can find another "way", then you have not found THE Way.
John 3:16 says that God gave His only begotten Son to the "world".
That is Jesus.
How was He Given?
He was given as the shed blood on the Cross.
Who do you think was on the Cross?
Why do you think God's Son was on it?
John 3:16
You don't understand how it works. The church has always used Scripture, as well as Tradition, in supporting her positions or teachings. But in a forum such as this Tradition is generally not accepted-though it is by some, usually in a qualified sense however. In any case we use Scripture much more often in a non-Catholic setting-because everyone at least agrees on it as an authoritative source of divine revelation.And I can't help but take note that while you're saying this, you've mostly used Scripture to back up your arguments, just like those darn Protestants. You better start only quoting early church fathers from now on if you want me to take you seriously regarding this. And those ECF quotes need to be bereft of Scripture references as well.
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?