sola scriptura is against 2Peter1:20

[jonathanbchristian]

I don't believe I will believe Catholics are saved until they believe in salvation by faith. We are not saved by works. I understand they believe the Sacraments save them and add to their salvation. I don't believe that one Sacrament can save you. We are saved by faith in the Cross of Jesus. Ephesians 2:9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." They add to the Cross the Sacraments; Jesus never said that works would save you. What did Jesus die for if He needed our works? What do our works add to the Cross? Our righteousness is filthy rags, Isaiah 64:6. What work do we add to the Cross? None! God doesn't need our works added to the Cross. If you say you have Jesus' righteousness and not your own filthy rags, then it is still Jesus' work, not yours. If you say faith in Jesus gave you works to do; we are saved by fatih, and God has given us work to do. Is it not still faith in the Cross of Jesus that gave you salvation from dead works to living? Faith in the salvation of Jesus' death for our sins. What could our works do more than sinners or fithy rags is we are not saved by faith,"not of works lest any man should boast" Ephesians 2:9. If we say our works save us, don't we boast? This doesn't fit Ephesians 2. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through fatih; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" NOT OF YOURSELVES. Nothing we do can save. A sinner who keeps and the traditions and Sacraments is still a sinner. Jesus died for our sins, it is the gift of God, not of ourselves. Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Matthew 12:34 "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." How can we being lost and evil sinners even confess the Lord with our mouth if it is not by faith in Jesus' work? We are evil before we are saved by Jesus. Once again we see it is the Work of Jesus, "not of yourselves". Notice it says if we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths, so we must first have faith in our hearts in the work of Jesus. We are not saved because we do works. But works complete faith James 2:17. If we believe in our hearts "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". We are saved by fatih in the Cross, which produces the work of speaking. You could speak all day with your evil lost heart and not be saved. You could bring filthy rags of words. How can we being evil speak the confession of our Lord if it is not faith in our hearts that makes us speak. Once again this is the work of God, not ourselves. 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." We see that no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost. We are not saved by the works that we do, we can't even say it without the Holy Spirit and mean it. Salvation is the "gift of God". If we say we work by faith, fatih has saved us unto good works. If we say we have works and have no faith, we are lost. If we say we are saved by faith and faith has made us work, WE ARE SAVED! Not by works, but by faith that once we are saved by it will have good works. The good works we do by faith are impossible when we are sinners. So we see we are saved by faith, not of works, unto good works that only the born again man can do. If you say I will do the works of a born again man you must first be saved. You must be born again before you can do the works of the living!

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=Dominion;506225]Too bad the Church has failed at all those things, eh? Maybe in another 2000 years they can get their act together, but I'm not going to wait that long.[/quote]
Dear Dominion: Jesus Christ said (Matthew 16:18) that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Perhaps you should remember what our LORD said, before you accuse the Church of failing. "Not knowing the Scriptures, or the power of God, ye do greatly err".
God bless you.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 15/28, 2011 AD

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't believe I will believe Catholics are saved until they believe in salvation by faith. We are not saved by works. I understand they believe the Sacraments save them and add to their salvation. I don't believe that one Sacrament can save you. We are saved by faith in the Cross of Jesus. Ephesians 2:9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." They add to the Cross the Sacraments; Jesus never said that works would save you. What did Jesus die for if He needed our works? What do our works add to the Cross? Our righteousness is filthy rags, Isaiah 64:6. What work do we add to the Cross? None! God doesn't need our works added to the Cross. If you say you have Jesus' righteousness and not your own filthy rags, then it is still Jesus' work, not yours. If you say faith in Jesus gave you works to do; we are saved by fatih, and God has given us work to do. Is it not still faith in the Cross of Jesus that gave you salvation from dead works to living? Faith in the salvation of Jesus' death for our sins. What could our works do more than sinners or fithy rags is we are not saved by faith,"not of works lest any man should boast" Ephesians 2:9. If we say our works save us, don't we boast? This doesn't fit Ephesians 2. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through fatih; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" NOT OF YOURSELVES. Nothing we do can save. A sinner who keeps and the traditions and Sacraments is still a sinner. Jesus died for our sins, it is the gift of God, not of ourselves. Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Matthew 12:34 "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." How can we being lost and evil sinners even confess the Lord with our mouth if it is not by faith in Jesus' work? We are evil before we are saved by Jesus. Once again we see it is the Work of Jesus, "not of yourselves". Notice it says if we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths, so we must first have faith in our hearts in the work of Jesus. We are not saved because we do works. But works complete faith James 2:17. If we believe in our hearts "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". We are saved by fatih in the Cross, which produces the work of speaking. You could speak all day with your evil lost heart and not be saved. You could bring filthy rags of words. How can we being evil speak the confession of our Lord if it is not faith in our hearts that makes us speak. Once again this is the work of God, not ourselves. 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." We see that no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost. We are not saved by the works that we do, we can't even say it without the Holy Spirit and mean it. Salvation is the "gift of God". If we say we work by faith, fatih has saved us unto good works. If we say we have works and have no faith, we are lost. If we say we are saved by faith and faith has made us work, WE ARE SAVED! Not by works, but by faith that once we are saved by it will have good works. The good works we do by faith are impossible when we are sinners. So we see we are saved by faith, not of works, unto good works that only the born again man can do. If you say I will do the works of a born again man you must first be saved. You must be born again before you can do the works of the living!

Dear jonathanbchristian,
If we are not saved by works, then James 2:24 is heresy, and you are accusing an apostle of Jesus Christ of erring. Which should we believe: you, or the Bible?
This is not a matter subject to misinterpretation. James 2:24 is clear: a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Don't you believe that?
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS What else do you miss? Do you miss that love is greater than faith (1 Cor. 13:13).
Do you miss that "faith without works is dead" (James)? Do you miss that Saint Paul, whom Protestants falsely accuse of teaching salvation by "faith alone", said "faith ... worketh through love" (Gal. 5:6). ?
PS Yes, we must be born again before we can do a lot of good works. Protestants misunderstand what it means to be born again.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

Dear jonathanbchristian,
If we are not saved by works, then James 2:24 is heresy, and you are accusing an apostle of Jesus Christ of erring. Which should we believe: you, or the Bible?
This is not a matter subject to misinterpretation. James 2:24 is clear: a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Don't you believe that?
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS What else do you miss? Do you miss that love is greater than faith (1 Cor. 13:13).
Do you miss that "faith without works is dead" (James)? Do you miss that Saint Paul, whom Protestants falsely accuse of teaching salvation by "faith alone", said "faith ... worketh through love" (Gal. 5:6). ?
PS Yes, we must be born again before we can do a lot of good works. Protestants misunderstand what it means to be born again.

What work do you say "saves" you that you did? Besides I quoted two verses that said the word "saved" not "justified". And the words in Greek are different. Maybe you should consider that it is two different doctrines of the Church, not one. You are saying "saved" but it never says "saved" in James. It says "justified".James is about Christian work not salvation. You don't see the word salvation in James.

 

[Scotth1960]

What work do you say "saves" you that you did? Besides I quoted two verses that said the word "saved" not "justified". And the words in Greek are different. Maybe you should consider that it is two different doctrines of the Church, not one. You are saying "saved" but it never says "saved" in James. It says "justified".James is about Christian work not salvation. You don't see the word salvation in James.

Can you be saved without being justified, and be justified without being saved? What does the Scripture say? Is not salvation in three phases

1. justification/regeneration how? repentance and faith, confession of sins and then baptism
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by trine immersion in water Titus 3:5

2. sanctification good works (James 2:24)
3. glorification resurrection
Isn't salvation a 3 step journey to Heaven?
PS You don't see the word salvation in James, but that doesn't mean James has no doctrine of salvation. He also doesn't say the exact words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so, would you say he denies the doctrine of the Trinity. You're not being logical!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Dear jonathanbchristian,
If we are not saved by works, then James 2:24 is heresy, and you are accusing an apostle of Jesus Christ of erring. Which should we believe: you, or the Bible?
This is not a matter subject to misinterpretation. James 2:24 is clear: a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Don't you believe that?
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS What else do you miss? Do you miss that love is greater than faith (1 Cor. 13:13).
Do you miss that "faith without works is dead" (James)? Do you miss that Saint Paul, whom Protestants falsely accuse of teaching salvation by "faith alone", said "faith ... worketh through love" (Gal. 5:6). ?
PS Yes, we must be born again before we can do a lot of good works. Protestants misunderstand what it means to be born again.

Dear scott.

James is saying that a man who has no works has no faith. If a man has no faith then a man has no salvation. James is not saying man is justified by works. He is saying works proves a mans faith is real.

 

[Dominion]

blow it out your ear, Scotth

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I think you should read James chapter 2 completely. It is about Christian work of people who are already born again. For the record the words "saved" "born-again" etc. are not used in James chapter 2, but the words "brothers" and "sister" are used speaking to people who are already saved about Christian works. If you study the word "justified" you will find that we are "justified" by faith. Romans 4:24-5:1 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justifed by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by 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." Titus 3:7 That being justifed by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Verses that talk about being "saved" "eternal life" Jesus "blood" and things to do with salvation, clearly say we are justified by faith! You can't say I don't believe James if you don't believe Romans. James chapter 2 is about Christian work, things to do with salvation are not mentioned.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think you should read James chapter 2 completely. It is about Christian work of people who are already born again. For the record the words "saved" "born-again" etc. are not used in James chapter 2, but the words "brothers" and "sister" are used speaking to people who are already saved about Christian works. If you study the word "justified" you will find that we are "justified" by faith. Romans 4:24-5:1 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justifed by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by 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." Titus 3:7 That being justifed by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Verses that talk about being "saved" "eternal life" Jesus "blood" and things to do with salvation, clearly say we are justified by faith! You can't say I don't believe James if you don't believe Romans. James chapter 2 is about Christian work, things to do with salvation are not mentioned.

Justified means declared innocent. Because we are justified we are saved. You can not be one without the other.

James is about people in the church who claim they are saved. But have no works. they are hearers only, not doers. They discriminate in the church. they do all kinds of things in the church which do not please God, not represent God. They are impostors. and James is calling them out. If you say you have faith, but you have no works, your faith is dead. A dead faith = no faith. no faith = no justification, = no salvation.

They were never saved. James is not contradicting Paul, who said we were saved and justified by faith apart from works. James was agreeing with paul. But talking to the works crowed. Demanding that they show works. which would prove they had faith. which would prove they were saved.

 

[Scotth1960]

You say the truth will set you free. You should find out the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholics DO NOT acknowledge two heads of the church. That's ridiculous. There is one head, Christ Jesus. The Bible says this so so do we. The pope is the physical representation of Christ here on earth. He leads us physically because he is guided by the Holy Spirit. And do you really understand the infallibility of the pope? if you did then you would know that it does not mean the pope is perfect or does not sin. Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. Do you think he knew of Peters weaknesses? Do you think he knew that Peter denied even knowing Him three times? Of course. But He made him the first pope anyway. This of course doesnt give popes or anyone a licence to sin. But rather it testifys to the fact that the pope is not perfect.

John 15:26 proves the fallibility of the pope, and the fallibility of Thomas Aquinas, because Thomas Aquinas insists that believing in the Filioque is necessary for salvation, and Aquinas says submitting to the supremacy of the pope over the whole inhabited earth is necessary for salvation. That is too much power for one fallible human being. Saint Peter was fallible, and he wasn't bishop of the whole earth. Originally, he was bishop of Antioch, not Rome, and so bishops of Antioch have just as much apostolic succession from Saint Peter as do bishops of Rome. The pope of Rome since 1014 AD insists on Filioque. Before 1014 AD, the popes of Rome did not insist on Filioque. In fact, in 806 AD, Pope Saint Leo III forbad the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed in Latin and in Greek. If he was wrong to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then he was a fallible pope. Then we cannot accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. If he was right to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then the later popes of Rome since 1014 AD are wrong to chant the Filioque in the Creed at Latin Mass. Either way, the popes of Rome contradict each other, so which pope is infallible? You have an insolvable dilemma here unless you read and BELIEVE what JESUS CHRIST says, in John 15:26. And John 15:26 proves the Filioque is heresy, and thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II is heretical. In this one doctrine, at least. Filioquism is semi-Sabellianism.
See:
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saint Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Joseph P. Farrell, translator. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Saint Photos. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
Saint Peter burned no heretics at the stake. He conducted no Crusades, or convened no Inquisitions.
He taught no doctrines of his own, but only the doctrine of Jesus Christ (Jude 3).
Some of the popes of Rome murdered for the papacy and bought the papacy for money.
This cannot be the Church that Christ founded, this papist "church".
Nor can the schisms of Luther and Calvin and the Protestant "Reformers" be considered to be Christ's true Church.
What verse proves Roman Catholicism false? On at least ONE point? And even one point error would mean we should not accept it as infallible.
Thus saith the LORD. "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I [Jesus Christ] shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony to Me [Jesus Christ]."
God bless you in Christ Jesus. Amen.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 15/28, 2011 AD Thursday United States of America
God bless America.

 

[Scotth1960]

blow it out your ear, Scotth

God bless you too. Have a good day.

 

[Scotth1960]

Dear scott.

James is saying that a man who has no works has no faith. If a man has no faith then a man has no salvation. James is not saying man is justified by works. He is saying works proves a mans faith is real.

James is not saying "man is justified by works". Excuse James 2:24 then, where James does say, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only". Of course, following Martin Luther, not the Bible, in adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, is your tradition which denies a man is justified by works. James 2:24 contradicts that notion.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

James is not saying "man is justified by works". Excuse James 2:24 then, where James does say, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only". Of course, following Martin Luther, not the Bible, in adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, is your tradition which denies a man is justified by works. James 2:24 contradicts that notion.

Scott can you tell me what Dead faith is? is it really faith? the context of james 2: 24 is people who show no works because they have a dead faith. You can't take context out of a passage just so your doctrine can be held true.

Of course you wont answer because your following men. Yet you claim I follow Luther, even though I disagree with Luther on many things. but yet when your questioned you can't even give an answer.

Jesus said he was going to tear the temple apart and rebuild it in three days. I guess he lied. he did not do it. I can make the bible say anything I want to if I do not have to look at context. Without context. I would not know Jesus spoke about his death and being resurrected in 3 days. And I did not need a church, or any man to tell me this. I just needed to read further in the passage.

Just like without Context. I would not know James was actually talking about people who had a dead faith. So in order to know what James meant in vs 24. we must know what dead faith is., I don't need a man to tell me what a dead faith is. I just need to think.

 

[dscherck]

What is the Church? Does the Church have one head, Jesus Christ? Or two heads, as Catholicism teaches? Is the pope of Rome infallible? How can the pope of Rome as successor of Saint Peter be infallible, when Saint Peter wasn't infallible? See Saint Paul who said of Saint Peter, "I withstood him to the faced, because he was to be blamed". Doesn't sound like Saint Peter, if he was the "first pope of Rome", was infallible. And if Saint Peter wasn't infallible, none of his successors as popes could be infallible, either. Simple logic.
The truth will set you free.

My dearest brother Scott. You're correct in that St. Peter did make mistakes. However, you're misunderstanding the concept of Papal infallibility. Think of it this way... Can Christ's Church ever speak something contrary to what Christ Himself taught? Obviously I think you'll agree that the Holy Spirit would prevent something like that from happening. If one then believe that St. Peter and his successors are the representatives of Christ's Church to the world, would it not make sense that, while performing his duties for the Church, he too would be protected from spreading falsehoods?

You'll note that in the Scriptures, when Peter was mistaken, he wasn't speaking for the Church as a whole. And throughout history, though there have been several bad men who succeed the blessed apostle Peter, the Holy Spirit prevented them from speaking false teachings in the name of the Church.

This is the concept of infallibility. For a more detailed viewpoint from the Roman Catholic side of things I'd recommend this link: Papal Infallibility

We can debate the idea of papal infallibility, but we should at least be clear on what the idea is and what it isn't.

 

[Consumed]

My dearest brother Scott. You're correct in that St. Peter did make mistakes. However, you're misunderstanding the concept of Papal infallibility. Think of it this way... Can Christ's Church ever speak something contrary to what Christ Himself taught? Obviously I think you'll agree that the Holy Spirit would prevent something like that from happening. If one then believe that St. Peter and his successors are the representatives of Christ's Church to the world, would it not make sense that, while performing his duties for the Church, he too would be protected from spreading falsehoods?

You'll note that in the Scriptures, when Peter was mistaken, he wasn't speaking for the Church as a whole. And throughout history, though there have been several bad men who succeed the blessed apostle Peter, the Holy Spirit prevented them from speaking false teachings in the name of the Church.

This is the concept of infallibility. For a more detailed viewpoint from the Roman Catholic side of things I'd recommend this link: Papal Infallibility

We can debate the idea of papal infallibility, but we should at least be clear on what the idea is and what it isn't.

Dscherk let me start that haven't a issue with Catholics at all as being Jesus loving people, you are my brother in Christ yet as soon as I seen mentioned the infallibility of the papacy
speaking what Gid has commanded that is contrary to scripture my mind need not look back further than the inquisitions under the blessing of the papacy, that shows it is fallible not infallible.
But on a whole, there are some things that I heartedly agree on with regards to views on society in general, abortion -marriage

Blessings brother, I didn't post to divide us just to share my view on this. God commands a blessing over unity not doctrinal differences


 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

Dear scott.

James is saying that a man who has no works has no faith. If a man has no faith then a man has no salvation. James is not saying man is justified by works. He is saying works proves a mans faith is real.

A man cannot be saved by works alone. And through faith alone come good works. Thus faith without works is also empty. But if you look to the heart of the matter, are the works people do truly born of faith? If not, then they are not justified, even if you think what you do is from faith, truly check your own heart and see if those works are done as an outward appearance to others... which is walking dangerously close to self focus and pride. As followers of Jesus we must examine ourselves and make sure what we are doing is pleasing to Him and not ourselves.

 

[Warrior44]

John 15:26 proves the fallibility of the pope, and the fallibility of Thomas Aquinas, because Thomas Aquinas insists that believing in the Filioque is necessary for salvation, and Aquinas says submitting to the supremacy of the pope over the whole inhabited earth is necessary for salvation. That is too much power for one fallible human being. Saint Peter was fallible, and he wasn't bishop of the whole earth. Originally, he was bishop of Antioch, not Rome, and so bishops of Antioch have just as much apostolic succession from Saint Peter as do bishops of Rome. The pope of Rome since 1014 AD insists on Filioque. Before 1014 AD, the popes of Rome did not insist on Filioque. In fact, in 806 AD, Pope Saint Leo III forbad the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed in Latin and in Greek. If he was wrong to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then he was a fallible pope. Then we cannot accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. If he was right to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then the later popes of Rome since 1014 AD are wrong to chant the Filioque in the Creed at Latin Mass. Either way, the popes of Rome contradict each other, so which pope is infallible? You have an insolvable dilemma here unless you read and BELIEVE what JESUS CHRIST says, in John 15:26. And John 15:26 proves the Filioque is heresy, and thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II is heretical. In this one doctrine, at least. Filioquism is semi-Sabellianism.
See:
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saint Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Joseph P. Farrell, translator. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Saint Photos. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
Saint Peter burned no heretics at the stake. He conducted no Crusades, or convened no Inquisitions.
He taught no doctrines of his own, but only the doctrine of Jesus Christ (Jude 3).
Some of the popes of Rome murdered for the papacy and bought the papacy for money.
This cannot be the Church that Christ founded, this papist "church".
Nor can the schisms of Luther and Calvin and the Protestant "Reformers" be considered to be Christ's true Church.
What verse proves Roman Catholicism false? On at least ONE point? And even one point error would mean we should not accept it as infallible.
Thus saith the LORD. "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I [Jesus Christ] shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony to Me [Jesus Christ]."
God bless you in Christ Jesus. Amen.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 15/28, 2011 AD Thursday United States of America
God bless America.

Brother, i think you have a twisted view of papal infallibility. What do YOU think it is?

 

[Warrior44]

,

Dscherk let me start that haven't a issue with Catholics at all as being Jesus loving people, you are my brother in Christ yet as soon as I seen mentioned the infallibility of the papacy
speaking what Gid has commanded that is contrary to scripture my mind need not look back further than the inquisitions under the blessing of the papacy, that shows it is fallible not infallible.
But on a whole, there are some things that I heartedly agree on with regards to views on society in general, abortion -marriage

Blessings brother, I didn't post to divide us just to share my view on this. God commands a blessing over unity not doctrinal differences
?

Thanks brother for your peaceful way of handling things. We ARE all meant to be united in Christ. If you would like to talk about the inquisition we can, however it doesn't prove that the pope teaches infallibly ex cathedra.,,,,

 

[Warrior44]

,

Dscherk let me start that haven't a issue with Catholics at all as being Jesus loving people, you are my brother in Christ yet as soon as I seen mentioned the infallibility of the papacy
speaking what Gid has commanded that is contrary to scripture my mind need not look back further than the inquisitions under the blessing of the papacy, that shows it is fallible not infallible.
But on a whole, there are some things that I heartedly agree on with regards to views on society in general, abortion -marriage

Blessings brother, I didn't post to divide us just to share my view on this. God commands a blessing over unity not doctrinal differences
?

John 15:26 proves the fallibility of the pope, and the fallibility of Thomas Aquinas, because Thomas Aquinas insists that believing in the Filioque is necessary for salvation, and Aquinas says submitting to the supremacy of the pope over the whole inhabited earth is necessary for salvation. That is too much power for one fallible human being. Saint Peter was fallible, and he wasn't bishop of the whole earth. Originally, he was bishop of Antioch, not Rome, and so bishops of Antioch have just as much apostolic succession from Saint Peter as do bishops of Rome. The pope of Rome since 1014 AD insists on Filioque. Before 1014 AD, the popes of Rome did not insist on Filioque. In fact, in 806 AD, Pope Saint Leo III forbad the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed in Latin and in Greek. If he was wrong to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then he was a fallible pope. Then we cannot accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. If he was right to forbid the Filioque in the Creed, then the later popes of Rome since 1014 AD are wrong to chant the Filioque in the Creed at Latin Mass. Either way, the popes of Rome contradict each other, so which pope is infallible? You have an insolvable dilemma here unless you read and BELIEVE what JESUS CHRIST says, in John 15:26. And John 15:26 proves the Filioque is heresy, and thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II is heretical. In this one doctrine, at least. Filioquism is semi-Sabellianism.
See:
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saint Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Joseph P. Farrell, translator. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Saint Photos. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
Saint Peter burned no heretics at the stake. He conducted no Crusades, or convened no Inquisitions.
He taught no doctrines of his own, but only the doctrine of Jesus Christ (Jude 3).
Some of the popes of Rome murdered for the papacy and bought the papacy for money.
This cannot be the Church that Christ founded, this papist "church".
Nor can the schisms of Luther and Calvin and the Protestant "Reformers" be considered to be Christ's true Church.
What verse proves Roman Catholicism false? On at least ONE point? And even one point error would mean we should not accept it as infallible.
Thus saith the LORD. "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I [Jesus Christ] shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony to Me [Jesus Christ]."
God bless you in Christ Jesus. Amen.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 15/28, 2011 AD Thursday United States of America
God bless America.

And actually it is Pope Benedict XVI. And its not his church. Or Pope John Paul II's church. It is Christ's Church. ,,,,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

A man cannot be saved by works alone. And through faith alone come good works. Thus faith without works is also empty. But if you look to the heart of the matter, are the works people do truly born of faith? If not, then they are not justified, even if you think what you do is from faith, truly check your own heart and see if those works are done as an outward appearance to others... which is walking dangerously close to self focus and pride. As followers of Jesus we must examine ourselves and make sure what we are doing is pleasing to Him and not ourselves.

Actually a man can not be saved by works period. If works enters into the equation it no longer is a saved by grace through faith in the work of Christ Gospel. It instead becomes a salvation by works through faith in my own doing Gospel. Christ is removed from the picture and self is put in his place.

As for the rest of what you said. Yes. we have this problem where people act like they are working as part of the deception they are saved. But it is all for personal gain. Not for Christ.

We also have the people who are doing works for the reason they think doing them has a part in their salvation. Even these are doing works for personal gain (trying to get saved) and not for Christ.

Then we have the group of people James was talking to. The Licentious crowd. They claimed they had faith. But all they had was words. there was no inner faith, and no inner repentance. it is all a game to them. A "get out of jail free" card. that they do just in case these so called Christians are right. But I do not want to change my life. So I have the best of both worlds. If they are right I make it to heaven. If they are wrong, I still have my life and my fun.