Conditional Salvation

[newbirth]

Absolutely correct! Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"

It doesn't look good for you. Choosing to believe the gospel is not an act of disobedience.

then my friend if you really think obeying is believing and believing is obeying...then it is even worst than I thought....devils believe so according to you they obey...choosing to believe the gospel means you should do what the gospel says to do...it does not mean you have already done it...so by your understanding... the unbeliever who does not steal or kill is obeying God...because God says don't kill or steal...and because he is obeying God then he is a believer......

James 1:21-22King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

[SUP]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/SUP]

 

[posthuman]

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

right here is a good reason not to say that people who proclaim the primacy of faith are denying works,
don't you think?



the one that believes shall do works

 

[posthuman]

and has he made everyone else willing and able? or is it you alone...while I admire your giving God the praise ...you are also giving the impression that God has over taken your will .....scripture teaches we have a choice...and it is a testimony of the power of God....

do you believe this is true?

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Philippians 2:13)

i do, and i am compelled to walk and speak in a way that proclaims it.

 

[Cassian]

This is an absolute FALSE accusation. Your true colors are really showing. I NEVER said that the writings of the Apostles/scripture are fallible, but the writings of the Church Fathers (which you base your primary arguments on) are fallible. Solid evidence is not found in fallible writings of men which can be in error or even manipulated. In post #656 you even stated that "Augustine has some heresies attached to him." So much for "thus saith the Fathers."

You said Church Fathers. The apostles were the first Church Fathers. The Church HAS NEVER based any thing on men outside of the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers are NOT interpreting scripture, They are relating what the Apostles taught before scripture existed. Even second generation Church Fathers are NOT interpreting but writing what they had been taught.
Furthermore, those that were counted as faithful were those accepted by the Body as being faithful. It is how the Holy Spirit has worked within the Body. The Body is infallible because it is Christ Himself. He is the Head and the Body, enlivened and guarded by the Holy Spirit. The Body never accepted those false heresies as explained by Augustine. The RC adopted some, developed others from the foundation of Augustine. Which is why Augustine is often called the Father of Roman Catholocism.

I can understand why you need to minimize or rationalize them out of existence. False teachings or false practices cannot exist unless anything counter to it must be abolished, ignored, minimized, rationalized out of existence. You are also assuming that they used sola scriptura when scripture did not exist. Even much later it is NEVER individual men that have ever interpreted scripture. The test of authenticity has always been what was always believed by the Body, not individual men. Christ never gave revelation to individuals. It was given to the Apostles in the beginning, and has been preserved by the Holy Spirit within His Body.

The writings of the ECF are not infallible and should be treated like writings of theologians today. Roman Catholic teaching holds that the word of God consists of both the written scriptures and the oral teachings.

On the contrary. They are not even remotely like modern theologians. Modern theologians attempt to deduce from a text ideas. None of them have ever been taught the Gospel to begin with, how would they even be able to come close. History shows the vacuousness of the method of sola scriptura. It is actually a Scholastic, Renaissance principle.

These oral traditions are known as the "sacred deposit" of tradition, and are binding upon Roman Catholics. It is to be expected that erroneous teachings would result from oral traditions.

you have been misguided by the RC as well. There is ONLY one Tradition. Christ gave ONLY ONE Gospel. There are no man made doctrines or tradition respective of Holy Tradition. Scripture is Holy Tradition. They cannot be separated which is quite obvious when one looks at the landscape of sola scriptura, a very good tool for the devil.

For this reason, traditions must be compared with God’s infallible Word.

Holy Tradition is God's Revelation to man of which scripture is only the written portion. We are not speaking of traditions, small traditions nor even sectarian, protestant denominational traditions. We are speaking of God's revelation to man which was oral, not written.

Christianity is not built on "Thus saith the Fathers." Christianity is founded on "Thus saith the Lord!"

Another misunderstanding. They have never stated it as such. They are relating the Gospel as it was taught by the Apostles, and the Body has preserved that Gospel. It has always been as the Holy Spirit revealed, delivered to the Saints ONCE. Jude 3.

You have yet to give any man that developed new additions or what you call traditions to the Gospel. You have not named the doctrine he added nor the date.

However, every individual who did try to do what protestants do as a matter of principle, has in every case been declared a heretic or his innovative idea was declared a heresy. The Holy Spirit has prevented any man to superimpose his own ideas upon the original deposit.


Your main misunderstanding is to think that the Early Church operated as individuals do today under the practice of sola scriptura. They are worlds apart as history clearly shows and getting even wider as time goes on. Protestants use the principle of sola scriptura, the Catholic Church the first to use the concept now call it Progressive Revelation. The Pope must get new revelation that supercedes the original deposit.

There is absolutely no correlation between Protestants and even the modern Roman Catholic with the practice and understanding of the early Church and even the Church today.

 

[newbirth]

do you believe this is true?

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Philippians 2:13)

i do, and i am compelled to walk and speak in a way that proclaims it.

do you take this to mean God controls your your will and your actions....God does not compel ..you are a free agent...have you not noticed the language of the gospel...God sent his son ...if you believe him you have life if you don't death is your portion .
Those who believe... do. Those who don't believe don't do
Colossians 3:17
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

where is the compelling here???

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
[SUP]3 [/SUP]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

[SUP]6 [/SUP]And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[SUP]9 [/SUP]But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

[SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

God working in you means He gives you power to do the right things...(power to become sons of God)

 

[newbirth]

right here is a good reason not to say that people who proclaim the primacy of faith are denying works,
don't you think?



the one that believes shall do works

shall does not mean you have to or are compelled to do...it means you are expected to...

 

[mailmandan]

then my friend if you really think obeying is believing and believing is obeying...then it is even worst than I thought..

We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 10:16). Those who refuse to believe the gospel have not obeyed the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Plain and simple.

..devils believe so according to you they obey..

Strawman argument. The devils believe "that there is one God" but they don't believe the gospel by trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption for salvation. Do you not understand the difference?

.choosing to believe the gospel means you should do what the gospel says to do.

Yes, BELIEVE IT! (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen as the Savior of all who believe/trust in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation. Those who believe/trust in works for salvation do not believe the gospel/have not obeyed the gospel.

..it does not mean you have already done it..

Those who are trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation already believed the gospel and continue to believe the gospel.

.so by your understanding... the unbeliever who does not steal or kill is obeying God...because God says don't kill or steal...and because he is obeying God then he is a believer......

Say what? Unbelievers are not believers and do not obey God no matter how much they try to avoid theft and murder. They are still in their sins.

James 1:21-22King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Unbelievers are not saved or doers of the word.

 

[mailmandan]

You said Church Fathers. The apostles were the first Church Fathers. The Church HAS NEVER based any thing on men outside of the Apostles.

The fallible writings of men that followed after the Apostles died were not inspired.

The Early Church Fathers are NOT interpreting scripture, They are relating what the Apostles taught before scripture existed. Even second generation Church Fathers are NOT interpreting but writing what they had been taught.

How do you know for sure they are relating EXACTLY what the Apostles taught? You can't prove that from the Bible, God's infallible Word.

The Body never accepted those false heresies as explained by Augustine. The RC adopted some, developed others from the foundation of Augustine. Which is why Augustine is often called the Father of Roman Catholocism.

According to Roman Catholics, does Augustine teach heresies? They believe that ONLY they are the TRUE Church and ONLY they have ALL the truth, yet your church makes this same claim but you both disagree on exactly what ALL this truth is. Interesting!

I can understand why you need to minimize or rationalize them out of existence. False teachings or false practices cannot exist unless anything counter to it must be abolished, ignored, minimized, rationalized out of existence. You are also assuming that they used sola scriptura when scripture did not exist. Even much later it is NEVER individual men that have ever interpreted scripture. The test of authenticity has always been what was always believed by the Body, not individual men. Christ never gave revelation to individuals. It was given to the Apostles in the beginning, and has been preserved by the Holy Spirit within His Body.

So I should ignore the Bible and blindly listen to what either the Roman Catholic church (which claims to be the body of Christ) has to say or the Orthodox church (which claims to be the body of Christ) has to say because only one of them has preserved ALL the truth? Yeah right. I escaped that bondage when I left the RCC.

On the contrary. They are not even remotely like modern theologians. Modern theologians attempt to deduce from a text ideas. None of them have ever been taught the Gospel to begin with, how would they even be able to come close. History shows the vacuousness of the method of sola scriptura. It is actually a Scholastic, Renaissance principle.

So NO modern theologians have EVER been taught the Gospel to begin with? That is a very bold statement of judgment! Then you rationalize your statement based on words of human wisdom which man teaches.

you have been misguided by the RC as well. There is ONLY one Tradition. Christ gave ONLY ONE Gospel. There are no man made doctrines or tradition respective of Holy Tradition. Scripture is Holy Tradition.

You are trying to misguide me. What is this ONE Tradition? What is this ONE Gospel? There is no Holy Tradition outside of Scripture that is to be added to Scripture.

They cannot be separated which is quite obvious when one looks at the landscape of sola scriptura, a very good tool for the devil.

Just the opposite! This so called "tradition" can be whatever the RCC or Orthodox church claims it is. We are not to add or take away from Scripture.

Holy Tradition is God's Revelation to man of which scripture is only the written portion. We are not speaking of traditions, small traditions nor even sectarian, protestant denominational traditions. We are speaking of God's revelation to man which was oral, not written.

What is this Holy Tradition that is not written down? Whatever the RCC church or your church says it is? This is dangerous!

Another misunderstanding. They have never stated it as such. They are relating the Gospel as it was taught by the Apostles, and the Body has preserved that Gospel. It has always been as the Holy Spirit revealed, delivered to the Saints ONCE. Jude 3.

You assume they are relating the Gospel as it was taught by the Apostles. Their writings are NOT INFALLIBLE. You have been brain washed just like Roman Catholics to believe this nonsense! The Gospel has been preserved in GOD'S WORD, not merely in a church that arrogantly claims to be the Body.

You have yet to give any man that developed new additions or what you call traditions to the Gospel. You have not named the doctrine he added nor the date.

What does this have to do with "Thus saith the Lord?" I'm more concerned with testing what man says in light of what Scripture says. I'm not as concerned as you are with researching the writings of fallible men in order to rationalize my beliefs.

However, every individual who did try to do what protestants do as a matter of principle, has in every case been declared a heretic or his innovative idea was declared a heresy. The Holy Spirit has prevented any man to superimpose his own ideas upon the original deposit.

According to who? The Roman Catholic church? Their credibility with me is slim to none. God has preserved the Truth in His Word, the Bible. I don't need a false religion to interpret the Bible for me. I have the Holy Spirit to teach me.

Your main misunderstanding is to think that the Early Church operated as individuals do today under the practice of sola scriptura. They are worlds apart as history clearly shows and getting even wider as time goes on. Protestants use the principle of sola scriptura, the Catholic Church the first to use the concept now call it Progressive Revelation. The Pope must get new revelation that supercedes the original deposit.

I'll stick with the Bible. God's Word is sufficient for me.

There is absolutely no correlation between Protestants and even the modern Roman Catholic with the practice and understanding of the early Church and even the Church today.

According to the Roman Catholic church, they are the original "True Church" that has not changed from the beginning and have the same practice and understanding of the early church. So your church makes this same bold claim as well? Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ and not legalistic, religious bondage to a church. The whole idea that only ONE church out there is the TRUE CHURCH and it's the church where I attend is based on pride and arrogance! The True Church is the Body of Christ, which is made up of ALL genuine born again believers and is not some institution with a name stamped on the building. Thank God I escaped from that bondage in the RCC! The Son has made me free and I am free indeed! Praise God!

 

[Cassian]

The fallible writings of men that followed after the Apostles died were not inspired.

but your writings are inspired and that is why I must follow your explanations. By the way, which Bible did Ignatius follow, or even Clement?

How do you know for sure they are relating EXACTLY what the Apostles taught? You can't prove that from the Bible, God's infallible Word.

It has not changed over 2000 years. It is the Body that the Truth was entrusted to, not individual men. It is why you get confused because every false teaching has been by individual men within the Church.
Give me any doctrine that you think changed, when by whom? The fact that the original places where Churches were founded are still in existence, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and many more. You can even throw in Rome as still in existence, though they left the Church and changed both Tradition and meaning of scripture. You can include the Oriental Churches who are in the last stages of rejoining the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately that the west was controlled and dominated by Rome and the Reformers saw the errors, but instead of coming back to the One True Church, they built their own form of religion, though based on the Bible. The assumed authority of man to change the Gospel based on their personal interpretations has made the text null and void of any meaning as there are now thousands of personal interpretations all passing as the Truth. No end in sight. Your view is just one of those thousands.

According to Roman Catholics, does Augustine teach heresies?

I don't really know. They adopted Original Sin and a form of predestination in the Council of Trent. They already held to Original Sin when they accepted Augustine's teachings against Pelagius.

They believe that ONLY they are the TRUE Church and ONLY they have ALL the truth, yet your church makes this same claim but you both disagree on exactly what ALL this truth is. Interesting!

Maybe it might be wise to be a Berean to learn the differences. However, many churches make that claim, Mormons, the New Revelation Church for example.

So I should ignore the Bible and blindly listen to what either the Roman Catholic church (which claims to be the body of Christ) has to say or the Orthodox church (which claims to be the body of Christ) has to say because only one of them has preserved ALL the truth? Yeah right. I escaped that bondage when I left the RCC.

I can understand that the bondage you fell into was your own. It is much more comfortable to be your own Pope and Church and have absolute authority over whatever you develop as your means of salvation. You at least should be honest and put your name on it as well. Calvin, Eddy, Hubbard, Smith, all have done so. They all have used scripture the very same way you do and claim it is the Truth. I imagine they feel the same way as you do, I'm right.

So NO modern theologians have EVER been taught the Gospel to begin with? That is a very bold statement of judgment! Then you rationalize your statement based on words of human wisdom which man teaches.

so all modern theologians also lived in the first century? All were taught directly from the Apostles?

You are trying to misguide me. What is this ONE Tradition? What is this ONE Gospel? There is no Holy Tradition outside of Scripture that is to be added to Scripture.

It is NOT added. Scripture is what is already added. It is a written witness of the Oral Tradition that was given.

What has been added are all the new revelations by hundreds of sola scripturists.

I must assume that you don't teach your children anything you have acquired. Even if you do, they should not regard it as having any meaning for them. The foundation of sola scriptura is that every individual must determine truth for himself from the text called the Bible. After all, you are a man and even your children should not rely upon your fallible teaching, only what they can determine directly from scripture. That is your rational. Only the individual is infallible for himself, not anyone else.

Just the opposite! This so called "tradition" can be whatever the RCC or Orthodox church claims it is. We are not to add or take away from Scripture.

but the historical fact is that hundreds of additions have been added by sola scripturists. they have developed the very thing Christ castigated is man made traditions. Today they are called, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, and the list goes one.
Yet the Gospel once given has never changed. No man's new innovation has ever been added.

What is this Holy Tradition that is not written down? Whatever the RCC church or your church says it is? This is dangerous!

It would be to a person who has no faith in the Holy Spirit. and who does not believe that Christ as Head of His Church cannot preserve it. Since the Church is Christ, you have no faith in Christ. This is exactly what the Nicene Creed states, I believe IN ONE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church, which is Christ, is an object of faith.
You put your faith is a book. You use it to garner ideas on which to establish a personal gospel, and discard the actual meaning that is embodied within it.

You assume they are relating the Gospel as it was taught by the Apostles. Their writings are NOT INFALLIBLE. You have been brain washed just like Roman Catholics to believe this nonsense! The Gospel has been preserved in GOD'S WORD, not merely in a church that arrogantly claims to be the Body.

They need not be inspired, or infallible. There were many other documents that could have been Canonized as well. If they would have been, you would be considering them as inspired today. Their writings if faithful to the deposit, the original, are considered trustworthy because they have been accepted by the Body. It is the Body that is infallible, Christ with the Holy Spirit. Man has no authority of himself. He has no authority to independently interpret the Gospel.
You are bogged down having been conditioned by the RC. All the changes they made are all man made derived changes. All came after they split from the Church. Two of them that caused the division, Filioque and the Papacy were developed by Popes in the west and they tried to foist it upon the whole. It should be quite obvious that the organization known as the Catholic Church is not being protected by the Holy Spirit. None of those changes were ever submitted to the Body for approval. They are man created and man imposed.

Did Calvin summit his teachings to the Church? Did Luther, what about you. Have you submitted them so that they are in line with that once given Gospel.

What does this have to do with "Thus saith the Lord?" I'm more concerned with testing what man says in light of what Scripture says. I'm not as concerned as you are with researching the writings of fallible men in order to rationalize my beliefs.

that is because you have assumed that you have more authority than the Holy Spirit. You assume that you are infallible in interpreting scripture while you castigate others who you believe were doing the very same thing. Getting back to Rome, the only difference between you and the Pope is that he speaks for an entire organization, you speak for an organization of one, you. You are your own infallible Pope. What you develop(interpret from a text) is your personal gospel. Which is why there are hundreds of them.

According to who? The Roman Catholic church? Their credibility with me is slim to none. God has preserved the Truth in His Word, the Bible. I don't need a false religion to interpret the Bible for me. I have the Holy Spirit to teach me.

yes, and so do the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, New Testament, and hundreds of others. You all have developed independent gospels suitable to each all by the Holy Spirit, all based on a Book.

I'll stick with the Bible. God's Word is sufficient for me.

It is actually your word. You are simply using a text while garnering it for ideas to develop a philosophy of a religion.

According to the Roman Catholic church, they are the original "True Church" that has not changed from the beginning and have the same practice and understanding of the early church. So your church makes this same bold claim as well? Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ and not legalistic, religious bondage to a church. The whole idea that only ONE church out there is the TRUE CHURCH and it's the church where I attend is based on pride and arrogance! The True Church is the Body of Christ, which is made up of ALL genuine born again believers and is not some institution with a name stamped on the building. Thank God I escaped from that bondage in the RCC! The Son has made me free and I am free indeed! Praise God!

Of course one prideful man will castigate those that have actually accepted Christ's Gospel as He gave it. Christ/Holy Spirit did not throw a book from heaven with instructions to make the best of it in interpreting it on ones own.
Of course, once again, you are using the RC to castigate. The Body of Christ does not even have an earthly organization. The closest one can get to one is when it meets as a whole in an Ecumenical Councils. Even then none of those bishops have absolute authority. Their findings must be submitted to the Body itself. It is the Body that determines, interprets that Truth. I might note also that in every case, the findings are always apophatic. It is the final say of the Holy Spirit that determines Truth, not man. Which is why in every single case where man has tried to impose his personal innovative idea upon that Gospel, once given, it was declared heretical. There are no exceptions.
I'm still waiting on those changes, man made changes you assert have been made, give the doctrine and date it changed?

 

[newbirth]

We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 10:16). Those who refuse to believe the gospel have not obeyed the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Plain and simple.

Ephesians 6:1
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
so you tell you son...son you must go collect firewood to make a fire or else we will freeze to death...and he says OK dad I believe you ....so he comes back two hours later with no firewood ....and you say why did you disobey me and he says I did not disobey you I chose to believe you ....you said obey and believe is the same thing

Strawman argument. The devils believe "that there is one God" but they don't believe the gospel by trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption for salvation. Do you not understand the difference?

you do not know the difference...else you would have done what the scripture says...devils believe and you believe and trust ...same thing ..no works

Yes, BELIEVE IT! (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen as the Savior of all who believe/trust in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation. Those who believe/trust in works for salvation do not believe the gospel/have not obeyed the gospel.

Matthew 28:18-20King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Those who are trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation already believed the gospel and continue to believe the gospel.

you are explaining faith without works....dead faith...show me the works accompanying your faith

Say what? Unbelievers are not believers and do not obey God no matter how much they try to avoid theft and murder. They are still in their sins.

you are obedient because you believe and they obey the word and are not believers...does it only work or you? they believe the gospel too...according to you ....obeying is believing and believing is obeying

Unbelievers are not saved or doers of the word.

so believers are saved(by grace) doers of the word(through faith)
then you are not saved on account of not doing the word...

show how someone is saved by grace through faith without works...in scripture chapter and verse

 

[SolidGround]

show how someone is saved by grace through faith without works...in scripture chapter and verse

You just quoted a verse. Just Google the phrase and BAM! Question answered.

Salvation IS conditional, and we all failed the conditions.
That's why God sent His Son, to fulfill the conditions for us.

To say it is "unconditional" cheapens the price paid.
It is "beyond conditional".

The conditions are set, and He chose to fulfill them for the elect.

 

[Hoffco]

The Bible teaches that salvation is both Unconditional and conditional. Election to salvation is unconditional. The first step of Sanctification and Justification are unconditional, solely by Grace, the power and mercy of God: then our response is: repent, trust and obey Jesus. The final step in sanctification is unconditional, by God at our death and resurrection. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[Hoffco]

SolidGround. your "beyond conditional" is what cheapens God's salvation. If God required nothing from us, salvation would be a Hellish thing, as it is today. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[JesusIsAll]

SolidGround. your "beyond conditional" is what cheapens God's salvation. If God required nothing from us, salvation would be a Hellish thing, as it is today. Love to all, Hoffco

Hey, Hoffco! Did you come up with that, or was that a quote from your favorite, Warren Wiersbe? And are you ready for the pre-tribulation rapture yet?

 

[elf3]

The fallible writings of men that followed after the Apostles died were not inspired.

but your writings are inspired and that is why I must follow your explanations. By the way, which Bible did Ignatius follow, or even Clement?

It has not changed over 2000 years. It is the Body that the Truth was entrusted to, not individual men. It is why you get confused because every false teaching has been by individual men within the Church.
Give me any doctrine that you think changed, when by whom? The fact that the original places where Churches were founded are still in existence, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and many more. You can even throw in Rome as still in existence, though they left the Church and changed both Tradition and meaning of scripture. You can include the Oriental Churches who are in the last stages of rejoining the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately that the west was controlled and dominated by Rome and the Reformers saw the errors, but instead of coming back to the One True Church, they built their own form of religion, though based on the Bible. The assumed authority of man to change the Gospel based on their personal interpretations has made the text null and void of any meaning as there are now thousands of personal interpretations all passing as the Truth. No end in sight. Your view is just one of those thousands.
I don't really know. They adopted Original Sin and a form of predestination in the Council of Trent. They already held to Original Sin when they accepted Augustine's teachings against Pelagius.

Maybe it might be wise to be a Berean to learn the differences. However, many churches make that claim, Mormons, the New Revelation Church for example.

I can understand that the bondage you fell into was your own. It is much more comfortable to be your own Pope and Church and have absolute authority over whatever you develop as your means of salvation. You at least should be honest and put your name on it as well. Calvin, Eddy, Hubbard, Smith, all have done so. They all have used scripture the very same way you do and claim it is the Truth. I imagine they feel the same way as you do, I'm right.

so all modern theologians also lived in the first century? All were taught directly from the Apostles?

It is NOT added. Scripture is what is already added. It is a written witness of the Oral Tradition that was given.

What has been added are all the new revelations by hundreds of sola scripturists.

I must assume that you don't teach your children anything you have acquired. Even if you do, they should not regard it as having any meaning for them. The foundation of sola scriptura is that every individual must determine truth for himself from the text called the Bible. After all, you are a man and even your children should not rely upon your fallible teaching, only what they can determine directly from scripture. That is your rational. Only the individual is infallible for himself, not anyone else.

but the historical fact is that hundreds of additions have been added by sola scripturists. they have developed the very thing Christ castigated is man made traditions. Today they are called, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, and the list goes one.
Yet the Gospel once given has never changed. No man's new innovation has ever been added.

It would be to a person who has no faith in the Holy Spirit. and who does not believe that Christ as Head of His Church cannot preserve it. Since the Church is Christ, you have no faith in Christ. This is exactly what the Nicene Creed states, I believe IN ONE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church, which is Christ, is an object of faith.
You put your faith is a book. You use it to garner ideas on which to establish a personal gospel, and discard the actual meaning that is embodied within it.

They need not be inspired, or infallible. There were many other documents that could have been Canonized as well. If they would have been, you would be considering them as inspired today. Their writings if faithful to the deposit, the original, are considered trustworthy because they have been accepted by the Body. It is the Body that is infallible, Christ with the Holy Spirit. Man has no authority of himself. He has no authority to independently interpret the Gospel.
You are bogged down having been conditioned by the RC. All the changes they made are all man made derived changes. All came after they split from the Church. Two of them that caused the division, Filioque and the Papacy were developed by Popes in the west and they tried to foist it upon the whole. It should be quite obvious that the organization known as the Catholic Church is not being protected by the Holy Spirit. None of those changes were ever submitted to the Body for approval. They are man created and man imposed.

Did Calvin summit his teachings to the Church? Did Luther, what about you. Have you submitted them so that they are in line with that once given Gospel.

that is because you have assumed that you have more authority than the Holy Spirit. You assume that you are infallible in interpreting scripture while you castigate others who you believe were doing the very same thing. Getting back to Rome, the only difference between you and the Pope is that he speaks for an entire organization, you speak for an organization of one, you. You are your own infallible Pope. What you develop(interpret from a text) is your personal gospel. Which is why there are hundreds of them.

yes, and so do the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, New Testament, and hundreds of others. You all have developed independent gospels suitable to each all by the Holy Spirit, all based on a Book.

It is actually your word. You are simply using a text while garnering it for ideas to develop a philosophy of a religion.

Of course one prideful man will castigate those that have actually accepted Christ's Gospel as He gave it. Christ/Holy Spirit did not throw a book from heaven with instructions to make the best of it in interpreting it on ones own.
Of course, once again, you are using the RC to castigate. The Body of Christ does not even have an earthly organization. The closest one can get to one is when it meets as a whole in an Ecumenical Councils. Even then none of those bishops have absolute authority. Their findings must be submitted to the Body itself. It is the Body that determines, interprets that Truth. I might note also that in every case, the findings are always apophatic. It is the final say of the Holy Spirit that determines Truth, not man. Which is why in every single case where man has tried to impose his personal innovative idea upon that Gospel, once given, it was declared heretical. There are no exceptions.
I'm still waiting on those changes, man made changes you assert have been made, give the doctrine and date it changed?

Quite ironic Cassian that you argue Biblical concepts yet you deny the authority of Scritpure. According to you "Christ church has final authority on truth." What you are saying is man has more authority than the Word of God. So you yourself rely on the interpretation of something you don't actually believe has authority. Anything you argue has no base ground root because if your "church" uses the Bible for truth which they interpret how can you even believe what they say is true?

 

[SolidGround]

SolidGround. your "beyond conditional" is what cheapens God's salvation. If God required nothing from us, salvation would be a Hellish thing, as it is today. Love to all, Hoffco

I was using the phrase "beyond conditional" to eliminate the possibility of someone assuming that I was saying that we could continue in sin after salvation.
It seems my effort at wise wording was in vain, lol.
But I agree with your sentiment towards those who would teach "cheap grace".

Neither grace is cheap, nor is the price cheap that Christ paid.
It is freely given,
yet there is work for us to do now that we have it.

 

[Hoffco]

Hey, Hoffco! Did you come up with that, or was that a quote from your favorite, Warren Wiersbe? And are you ready for the pre-tribulation rapture yet?

LOL, you have a good memory, NO, but Warren is on my menu ,almost every day, on "Songtime USA" with Adam miller, One place .com One of my favorites is Paul David Tripp. warren is prolific writer, very well loved , but messed up on most doctrines. YES, I am ready for "the pre-trib. rapture", but it won't happen. But I am not yet counting the days set by the Book of Daniel. Looking for that blessed HOPE; don't grow weary, it will come, at the appointed day. Looking for the "uppertaker, not the undertaker." Love Hoffco

 

[JesusIsAll]

LOL, you have a good memory, NO, but Warren is on my menu ,almost every day, on "Songtime USA" with Adam miller, One place .com One of my favorites is Paul David Tripp. warren is prolific writer, very well loved , but messed up on most doctrines. YES, I am ready for "the pre-trib. rapture", but it won't happen. But I am not yet counting the days set by the Book of Daniel. Looking for that blessed HOPE; don't grow weary, it will come, at the appointed day. Looking for the "uppertaker, not the undertaker." Love Hoffco

Well, God bless you, Hoffco! You're in better spirits today. I'll let Warren know he won't need the Witness Protection Program, after all. LOL!

"Looking for Christ, not Antichrist."

 

[Cassian]

The fallible writings of men that followed after the Apostles died were not inspired.

Quite ironic Cassian that you argue Biblical concepts yet you deny the authority of Scritpure.

I have NEVER denied the authority of scripture. The only thing that I deny is all the man made theories and ideas they developed from a text. Clearly showing that it is in fact Christ/the Holy Spirit that is the authority and not individual men.

According to you "Christ church has final authority on truth." What you are saying is man has more authority than the Word of God.

Since Christ IS the WORD of God it puts scripture as secondary. Scripture is the witnesss to HIS TRUTH, it is NOT the Truth. This is what you claim but have nothing but an assertion and a history that confirms scripture is not authoritative nor IS the Truth. Where does scripture claim that scripture IS THE TRUTH?

So you yourself rely on the interpretation of something you don't actually believe has authority.

I believe Christ gave the Gospel, completely. Man did not need to interpret it. Tell me why do you think the Apostles needed to interpret it? Why would you think that the early Church needed to interpret it? How can you interpret something that did not exist in the early Church.
Your whole premise is based on a myth that nothing was done until the 4th century when the Canon was determined. Another ironic thing is that you consider yourself much more informed than those living in the 4th century. You claim you have the authority to interpret scripture, yet if a 4tn century individual did do it, it is not valid. What is the difference between a 4th century Christian and you?

Anything you argue has no base ground root because if your "church" uses the Bible for truth which they interpret how can you even believe what they say is true?

I know that is a difficult thing for someone to believe when they put their entire trust in their own ability to decipher a text. But Christ is the root of my belief and faith. Christ gave us His Revelation from which scripture is derived. The Church has never interpreted the Bible. The Church in the the beginning was given ALL of God's revelation. All of that revelation was given to the early Church. ALL that same revelation is being preserved within Christ's Body.
You have simply extracted a text out of its full content and context and created new content and a different context.
Sola scriptura has manifestly proven that scripture has no innate authority as all sola scripturists state. After all it is but a benign paper and ink. There can be only two options. It is Christ with the Holy Spirit or man. Sola scripturists have proclaimed that man is the authority by developing hundreds of interpretations from the same text. Does not sound very authoritative to me.
On the other hand you might give Mailmandan a little help. He still has not given any man made doctrines, the doctrine or date of development within Christ's Body.

 

[posthuman]

shall does not mean you have to or are compelled to do...it means you are expected to...

"shall do" doesn't mean "might do" or "ought to do" -- it means will do & you can count on it. the One who has known the end since the beginning is the One who said this.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
(John 14:10)

even Christ said that it isn't Him who performs the works He does, but the Father that dwells in Him.
in the same way, it is not me that works the righteousness that is worked through me, but the Living One in us whose righteousness is shown in us, through us, by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and lives, renewing our minds, empowering and prodding us to the things preordained for us to do.