Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Valletta]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the RCC dogma of papal infallibility applies to doctrine, does it not? If obedience to the Law of Moses is not doctrine, what is it? That was the cause for Paul's rebuke of Peter. If Peter, as the first Pope, was infallible in matters of doctrine, then Paul was a heretic in propounding a doctrine which blatantly contradicted that held and practiced by Peter. Thus, Paul ought to have been excommunicated. Why, then, did Peter commend Paul in his epistle?

Catholics believe that the promise of Jesus is valid--we do not call the words of Jesus an "invention." Papal infallibility is limited to the RARE instances when a pope (and most popes never do) speaks "ex cathedra." You appeared to understand this well earlier this very year when you said:

"Ex cathedra", in a nutshell, simply means that the Pope can speak infallibly under certain specified conditions, not that anything and everything that spews out of his mouth is infallible. #532

 

[Buzzard3]

If you think that dogma and doctrine are two entirely different things, then there was no dogma at all until after 1871 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented.

i doubt it. Beliefs as fundamental as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are dogmas. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are statements of dogma. These beliefs go back thousands of years.

At present there are only four Dogmas in the RCC - the four Marian Dogmas proclaimed in 1950.

That's incorrect. My understanding is that there are hundreds of Catholic dogmas.

You can search the CCC in an effort to discover any other Dogmas, but you will not find them.

What is your definition of a dogma?

 

[Buzzard3]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the RCC dogma of papal infallibility applies to doctrine, does it not? If obedience to the Law of Moses is not doctrine, what is it? That was the cause for Paul's rebuke of Peter. If Peter, as the first Pope, was infallible in matters of doctrine, then Paul was a heretic in propounding a doctrine which blatantly contradicted that held and practiced by Peter.

What makes you think keeping certain ritual laws of Moses (such as circumcision and the dietary laws) was Church doctrine? At Antioch, Paul said to the Jews, "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law" (Gal 2:15-16)

Peter obviously didn't teach that doctrine, because when he was living at Antioch, Paul said he was living "like a Gentile and not like a Jew" (Gal 2:14).

 

[Buzzard3]

If John 16:13 is referring to prophecy and knowledge pertaining to salvation? Than what is it about salvation that has yet to be revealed by the RCC?

The Catholic Church has already revealed the means of salvation.

Without the Church, no one would understand what Jesus meant by this:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53-56).

Without the Church, no one would know what this means:
"Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

Without the Church, no one would know what this means:
"There is sin which is deadly ... All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly" (1John 516-17).

Without the Church, no one would know what this means:
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19)

Without the Church, no one would know what this means:
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:22-13)

You claim the RCC has infallible authority that is given it by fallible Scripture.

Huh? When did I claim Scripture is "fallible".

Does "infallible" really mean "not changing" or does it mean "not failing"?

Both.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The Catholic Church has already revealed the means of salvation.

Why do you suppose Scripture was written in the first place?

Without the Church, no one would know what this means:

John 14:26

And your favorite verse John 16:13 (Who's the one named in this verse who "guides into all truth"?) (Hint - it's not a church.)

Huh? When did I claim Scripture is "fallible".

You questioned how the Bible could be the infallible Word of God when it was written by sinners:

How can the Bible be the infallible Word of God? It was written by sinners!

Well, we know "infallible" can't mean "unchanging" because we know Scripture translations / texts have been altered. (The Masoretic text is not exactly the same as the paleo-Hebrew) We know that from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Besides the Eastern church had told Jerome that when he did the Latin Vulgate translation.)

So..... why do you suppose alterations to the text have been made?

 

[Buzzard3]

You questioned how the Bible could be the infallible Word of God when it was written by sinners:

Good Lord. That went right over your head - are you really that slow? The point I was trying to make was that the Bible, which is the infallible word of God, was written by sinners, which means God can can express his infallible thoughts and will and truth through fallible humans (sinners). Thus God can use a sinner like Peter to discern what "all the truth" is.

Why do you suppose Scripture was written in the first place?

Is Scripture "all the truth"? If so, whose interpretation of Scripture is "all the truth"? You can't tell me and you can't see that sola scriptura is a fool's paradise.

John 14:26

And your favorite verse John 16:13 (Who's the one named in this verse who "guides into all truth"?) (Hint - it's not a church.)

Oh, so the Holy Spirit has guided YOU to "all the truth"? If so, tell me, what is "all the truth"?

I've already pointed out that Eph 4:11-16 says it's the CHURCH through which the Holy Spirit communicates "all the truth", but instead of accepting what Scripture says, you tried to explain it away with an absurd interpretation that even the village idiot would laugh at. You're a waste of time.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Good Lord. That went right over your head - are you really that slow? The point I was trying to make was that the Bible, which is the infallible word of God, was written by sinners, which means God can can express his infallible thoughts and will and truth through fallible humans (sinners). Thus God can use a sinner like Peter to discern what "all the truth" is.

Is Scripture "all the truth"? If so, whose interpretation of Scripture is "all the truth"? You can't tell me and you can't see that sola scriptura is a fool's paradise.

Oh, so the Holy Spirit has guided YOU to "all the truth"? If so, tell me, what is "all the truth"?

I've already pointed out that Eph 4:11-16 says it's the CHURCH through which the Holy Spirit communicates "all the truth", but instead of accepting what Scripture says, you tried to explain it away with an absurd interpretation that even the village idiot would laugh at. You're a waste of time.

Well, obviously the point you were trying to make; you didn’t make very clearly. As your prior assertion was that the RCC is the authority that “conveys all truth”.

So if the Word of God is infallible and the Holy Spirit is the One who leads in all truth; why is it then necessary that the RCC be the “communicator” of all truth?

You can’t have it both ways.

The explanations you gave me are what the RCC teaches; and gee it’s too bad that I pointed you to Scripture that doesn’t support what the RCC taught you.

So, which is it? The RCC or the Scripture?

And what do you do with the fact that the leaders of “the church” of the OT would rather kill their Messiah than listen to what he says.

Why does interpretation infallibility apply to the RCC but not the leadership of OT Israel?

You are aware of the Scripture that speaks of apostasy in the church; aren’t you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your position requires an extremely narrow view of what a sin might be.

If we take a broader view that sin means "missing God's target" in any aspect of your life, then, yes, we all do sin and we are inevitably going to die without having confessed some of those times we've missed God's target in some action we've taken in our lives.

We get our definitions on sin from the Bible and not from some church or religious book. In other words, you need a Bible verse that says sin is missing the mark. But you won’t find it. Personally, such a statement takes away from the seriousness of sin.

See this article here:

Sin is Worse than Missing the Mark

I recently read about an 8 year old girl, Aryanna Schneeberg, from Campbellsport, Wisconsin, who was playing in her backyard when she was suddenly struck in the back with an arrow. The arrow penetr…

thepreachersword.com

 

[RDKirk]

We get our definitions on sin from the Bible and not from some church or religious book. In other words, you need a Bible verse that says sin is missing the mark. But you won’t find it. Personally, such a statement takes away from the seriousness of sin.

See this article here:

Sin is Worse than Missing the Mark

I recently read about an 8 year old girl, Aryanna Schneeberg, from Campbellsport, Wisconsin, who was playing in her backyard when she was suddenly struck in the back with an arrow. The arrow penetr…

thepreachersword.com

The word "sin" in the New Testament is the koine Greek hamartia, which is a term the Greeks otherwise used in archery. It literally means "missing the mark."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word "sin" in the New Testament is the koine Greek hamartia, which is a term the Greeks otherwise used in archery. It literally means "missing the mark."

You mean that is what it means in some scholar dictionary. Again, think about how dumb this sounds. You are comparing sin as if it was failing at a sport. I know some people get upset when their home team football team loses, but this is in no way describes sin. Sin brings death and causes unimaginable pain to God and others. That’s not the same as messing up in a sports game like archery or target shooting.

 

[Buzzard3]

So if the Word of God is infallible and the Holy Spirit is the One who leads in all truth; why is it then necessary that the RCC be the “communicator” of all truth?

Has the Holy Spirit guided you into "all the truth"?

Judging by your embarrassingly stupid interpretation of Eph 4:11-16 and other verses, I'd say definitely not ... either that, or the Holy Spirit is an idiot.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Has the Holy Spirit guided you into "all the truth"?

Judging by your embarrassingly stupid interpretation of Eph 4:11-16 and other verses, I'd say definitely not ... either that, or the Holy Spirit is an idiot.

You either put your faith in God or you put it in the RCC. Seems to me you picked "what's behind door #2".

 

[RDKirk]

You mean that is what it means in some scholar dictionary. Again, think about how dumb this sounds. You are comparing sin as if it was failing at a sport. I know some people get upset when their home team football team loses, but this is in no way describes sin. Sin brings death and causes unimaginable pain to God and others. That’s not the same as messing up in a sports game like archery or target shooting.

What it means is that "sin" is every occurrence in which we fail to have followed God's perfect path for us each day.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What it means is that "sin" is every occurrence in which we fail to have followed God's perfect path for us each day.

So you double down on the scholarly interpretation that makes no sense even though I have demonstrated how silly it is.
Again, I get no impression of sin being like one getting upset because they failed in some sports game. That minimizes the seriousness of sin as described in the BIble. But in today sin and still be saved culture, I am not surprised this kind of slop is eaten up without a second thought. People just believe things mindlessly and they do not get their definition of what sin is from the Bible itself. They go to the scholars and kiss their rings and hoping to get more worldly wisdom that is not in the Bible. Other dumb things they say is, “Repent is always a change of mind, and all we have to do to be saved is believe on the finish work of the cross.” Nobody gets their faith exclusively from the Bible anymore. They need the scholar. They need the scholarly dictionary and or commentaries. The Word of God is not something they can understand without these man made tools.

 

[RDKirk]

So you double down on the scholarly interpretation that makes no sense even though I have demonstrated how silly it is.

The scholarly interpretation is "missing the mark," your anonymous Internet opinion not withstanding.

Again, I get no impression of sin being like one getting upset because they failed in some sports game. That minimizes the seriousness of sin as described in the BIble. But in today sin and still be saved culture, I am not surprised this kind of slop is eaten up without a second thought. People just believe things mindlessly and they do not get their definition of what sin is from the Bible itself. They go to the scholars and kiss their rings and hoping to get more worldly wisdom that is not in the Bible. Other dumb things they say is, “Repent is always a change of mind, and all we have to do to be saved is believe on the finish work of the cross.” Nobody gets their faith exclusively from the Bible anymore. They need the scholar. They need the scholarly dictionary and or commentaries. The Word of God is not something they can understand without these man made tools.

The point is that people miss the mark all the time.

The concept of living absolutely sinlessly is based on an extremely narrow concept of what sin is. The Pharisees had that narrow concept, that sins could be quantified by number.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The scholarly interpretation is "missing the mark," your anonymous Internet opinion not withstanding.

Right, and Jesus said Beware of the Scribes. The scholars are the scribes of our day. For they TRAN-scribe the Scriptures.
So why are you trusting them? Modern scholarship of today was started by Westcott and Hort and they were heretics. They had Unitarians on their Revised Version team. They were into Evolution. They were liberal when it came to believing certain stories in the Bible. Things have not gotten any better since then in Modern scholarship.

The point is that people miss the mark all the time.

Murder is not missing the mark. It is evil.
Rape is not missing the mark. It is evil.

So you go over to a family next door whose family member was murdered, and you try to console them. You tell them, “Yeah, it’s a real shame. I am sorry. But this murder is like the arrow I missed on the target the other day.“

Man… The looks you will get If you said something like that.

Even if you tried to explain it from the Bible, the comparison you made would minimize the pain they felt by the evil that took place.

That’s why the phrase is just made up and stupid.
Some scholar just made it up and you have no way of knowing it really is true.
But just keeping following them if that’s your thing.
My trust is in the Bible and not scholars, and their idiotic mumblings.
In other words, when I want to know what sin is I look to the Bible.
You look to some Modern scholar who most likely does not even know how to order a pizza in Greek.

The concept of living absolutely sinlessly is based on an extremely narrow concept of what sin is.

The best answer is Scripture.
Check it out here:

What does Scripture Mean About Perfection?

The Scriptures Teaching on Sinless Perfectionism: Sinless Perfectionism is the goal of our Sanctification. It is yet another Biblical doctrine that is commonly misunderstood and or denied amongst Eternal Security Proponents or those who do not believe that “Sin Cannot Separate a Believer From...

www.christianforums.com

The Pharisees had that narrow concept, that sins could be quantified by number.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[MaxPower]

This is true in our Initial Salvation when we are first saved by God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Titus 3:5) (Romans 4:3-5) (Romans 11:6), but this is not the case in Sanctification, which follows.

How so?

James says,
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24).

Paul says,
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
(1 Timothy 5:8).

So if you do not do the good work of providing for your own, you are worse than an unbeliever.
So this cannot be talking about false believers as many in your camp will try to use with other verses like this.
Obviously, a person is not saved if they are worse than an unbeliever and they deny the faith.

Furthermore, Paul says,
"8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Galatians 6:8-9).

Okay, so according to this verse 8, if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap everlasting life. So this is not just doing nothing but believing in Jesus.
Verse 9 defines what this “sowing to the Spirit” actually is. It says In verse 9 that we are not to be weary (tired) in well doing (good works), for we will reap (reap everlasting life) if we faint not. So we have to continue to sow to the Spirit in well doing (or good works) to reap everlasting life (Which is salvation). This is from the apostle Paul himself. He is teaching you need to have good works to be saved here, which of course is only AFTER you are saved by God’s grace through faith without works in your Initial Salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9), etcetera.

But yes, there is a next step of salvation. It’s called Sanctification. Most Christians are either unaware of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, or they fight against what it plainly says.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says,
"…God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

So the secondary aspect of salvation is described here. God chooses you to salvation through Sanctification. Sanctification is to live holy according to the immediate context (See verse 12 for the polar opposite concept of this verse, and also see verses 15-16).

In addition, Paul says,
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” (Romans 8:13).

In other words, if you live one way by living after the flesh (sin), you will die (die spiritually), but if you live another way by mortifying (Putting to death) the deeds of the body (sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit (Sanctification), you will live (live eternally).



Actually, we are initially saved by believing the gospel message that includes believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day for our salvation. So it is more than just believing in the cross to receive God’s grace. In our Initial Salvation, it can also include seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ, as well (See: Romans 10:9, and Romans 10:13).

But God’s grace is not a license for immorality or lasciviousness (Jude 1:4).
God’s grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).
In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is tied to verse 14. Verse 13 says God calls us to salvation through Sanctification and a belief of the truth, which is a call of the gospel (verse 14). So just as God’s grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, the gospel calls us to Sanctification (i.e., to live holy by the Holy Spirit).

In fact, the reason why Christ gave Himself for the church so that He might sanctify it in making it holy by the Word of God (Scripture).

“…even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish”(Ephesians 5:25-27).



Yes, Jesus is our salvation. But He saves us both by His grace, and in Sanctification.

Philippians 2:12-14
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”(John 15:5).


Right, being born again is not a process, but salvation is a process.

“…let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:”(Hebrews 12:14).




I believe God can impute righteousness by our belief in the gospel when we are initially saved just as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. No doubt about it. If you accepted Jesus as your Savior a few minutes before you died, you would be saved by God’s grace 100% without any works. But seeing we have to live out our faith in a continual access to His grace, this involves the work of faith and being faithful. Just read the heroes of faith account in Hebrews 11. We see accounts of faith in action and it was not all accounts of them believing with no action.

You also have to employ 1 John 1:7 for the blood of Jesus to cleanse you from all sin, as well.
In other words, if we walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Walking in the light is conditional. God does not force you to walk in the light.
Walking in the light = Loving your brother according to the indirect wording in 1 John 2:9-11.
So you have to love your brother to have the blood of Jesus cleanse you of all sin, which means it is a part of salvation.
Also, see 1 John 3:10, and 1 John 3:15.

In addition, we have to abide in Christ Jesus to have eternal life. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life. How do you know you have Jesus Christ in your life? By finding that you are keeping His commandments (1 John 2:3). This is not the laws of Moses like keeping the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, holy days, and animal sacrifices. No, no. We are under the commands that come from Jesus and His followers. However, the person who says they know the Lord and they do not keep His commandments, they are a liar and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4). Meaning, Jesus is not in them because Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. They are not saved if they are not keeping His commandments. Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). Obviously if people do not love Jesus are not saved. So obeying the Lord’s commands is a must. Obeying God is also not forced upon us, either. We have to choose this day each day in whom we will serve.

That is a very long answer to try bring bring salvation in through your own works, you are mixing sanctification with discipleship

Jesus is our Sanctification

1 Corinthians 1 :30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, Christians are clean through the Word....Without Jesus we cant do anything

If you are saved what you can do is discipleship.... Because you are saved, you have the gift of righteousness and the gift of eternal life, the gift is Jesus himself, Christ in you

If you bring salvation in through your sanctification all you can try work for is to try get a new body and a place in heaven, but the truth is you get those things because Jesus secured that for all the ones that that are his, purchased with his blood who because their sin has been paid for can enter heaven because they are made right with God

What you can do is show you are thankful, trying to work for something Jesus has already finished is a strange situation

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is a very long answer to try bring bring salvation in through your own works, you are mixing sanctification with discipleship

Jesus is our Sanctification

1 Corinthians 1 :30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, Christians are clean through the Word....Without Jesus we cant do anything

If you are saved what you can do is discipleship.... Because you are saved, you have the gift of righteousness and the gift of eternal life, the gift is Jesus himself, Christ in you

If you bring salvation in through your sanctification all you can try work for is to try get a new body and a place in heaven, but the truth is you get those things because Jesus secured that for all the ones that that are his, purchased with his blood who because their sin has been paid for can enter heaven because they are made right with God

What you can do is show you are thankful, trying to work for something Jesus has already finished is a strange situation

What you said does not address the verses I posted.
You quoted my post that had verses like 1 Timothy 5:8, Romans 8:13, Galatians 6:8-9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and Jude 1:4.
Until you address these verses by offering me a word-for-word commentary on them, then you are simply offering your man-made opinion without really looking at the whole counsel of God’s Word, my friend. I believe most believe as you do because they are just parroting what they were taught by their church or by reading some Christian articles that tickle one’s ears. Most do not bother to just look at the Scriptures and let them speak for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, I say this not to wound you, but I speak in love and truth.
So I challenge you. Please take as much time as you need to truly meditate on these verses and pray over them and look at the whole counsel of God’s Word on this matter before replying back. Give me your best explanation on what these verses say.

Thank you for your time, and may the Lord Jesus bless you and your family richly.

 

[MaxPower]

So I challenge you.

I addressed you and quoted lines of scripture that i was prepared to show based on how you reacted, you obviously don't recognize them and credited them to man, But if you want to make it a challenge, i accept

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I addressed you and quoted lines of scripture that i was prepared to show based on how you reacted, you obviously don't recognize them and credited them to man, But if you want to make it a challenge, i accept

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Please understand that if you have to explain away the verses in what they plainly say in English then that is not playing fair in my humble opinion. The idea is to read the Scriptures like a child and to believe what they say simply and plainly. Also, consider that when Paul spoke of God's grace through faith without works, Paul was fighting against the heresy of Circumcision Salvationism as mentioned in Acts chapter 15 (See: Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24). Meaning, if a person thought they had to GET saved initially by circumcision, they would be by-passing in being saved by God's grace through faith without works. Meaning, we do not get saved by circumcision (a work) in our Initial salvation (Which would be Works Alone Salvationism). We are to FIRST GET SAVED by God's grace through faith without works in our INITIAL SALVATION. So when Paul talks about how we are not saved by works, he is referring to the person trying to be saved solely by the works of the Laws of Moses Alone without God's grace via by thinking they had to first be saved by being circumcised. This is evident if you see Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:1, Galatians 2:3-4, Galatians 5:2, etcetera.

I will endeavor to give a reply to what you said, as well.
But I hope you are up for my challenge. Include your response involving "Circumcision Salvationism," as well.
Ask yourself, did Paul ever speak against the teachings of Jesus in Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 25:14-30, Matthew 25:31-46, and Luke 9:62?

If he did, then what do you make of when Paul said if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing? (See: 1 Timothy 6:3-4). Also, consider that James 4:6 says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Meaning, that if a person does not agree with the words of Jesus in the verses I mentioned above, they are proud and God resists the proud, and they are not receiving grace.

Ask yourself: Was Paul more concerned primarily about the Old Law and Works Salvation without God’s grace?
Or was Paul against what Jesus’ taught?