SALVATION ONLY POSSIBLE WITHOUT WORKS!

[Apostol2013]

This is not to judge to condemnation but that we as a whole self examine ourselves to walk daily unto our cross remembering our Lord till he comesaas sheep to the slaughter that we glory not in works of our own but in the works of our lord that gave us the gift of salvation so lets maintain the salvation by maintaining firm and sin not intentionally habitually but pray with the spirit for pruning through the Holy Ghost with the holy commandments the word of God by faith not as law but in all thanksgiving.in that grace a higher magnified law of an everlasting promise

 

[Alligator]

Regardless what you call it, sin is sin, and this passage says if we do not walk in the light, the blood of Christ will no longer cleanse us

And yet if we say we have no sin we are liars. 1 John 1:8

I have the Intercessor Who ever liveth to make intercession for me before the Father in heaven.

The blood of Christ reconciles me to God and His blood is better than the blood of calves and goats which need to be done often. Christ is one sacrifice that is eternal and completely efficacious.

You simply underestimate Gods gift of salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

well, actually I agree with what you said, so how am I underestimating God's gift of salvation?

 

[haz]

So.....how many works are required today to keep you secure in your false salvation?

I've asked this same question of many legalists and they cannot answer it. They usually start off with ambiguous claims but end up backing off as they have no scripture to support the doctrine they follow.

 

[LT]

This is not to judge to condemnation but that we as a whole self examine ourselves to walk daily unto our cross remembering our Lord till he comesaas sheep to the slaughter that we glory not in works of our own but in the works of our lord that gave us the gift of salvation so lets maintain the salvation by maintaining firm and sin not intentionally habitually but pray with the spirit for pruning through the Holy Ghost with the holy commandments the word of God by faith not as law but in all thanksgiving.in that grace a higher magnified law of an everlasting promise

Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35, 38-39; Philippians 1:6;1 Peter 1:4-5), and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirms that doctrine.


If we could lose our salvation, then we could NEVER EVER get it back Hebrews 6:4-6

If it is possible to sin after salvation, then repent from that sin, and be brought back, then salvation was never lost in the 1st place.

A father does not disown his child every time they make a mistake. No! He disciplines them, but they remain loved, and remain His child.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Just the opposite. But man, as you so well exemplify, needs to denigrate the Holy Spirit, so that he a man, can elevate himself above the Holy Spirit. It is actually blasphemous to assign the work of the Holy Spirit to that of the devil. I hope that some day you might see the error of your ways, and repent. You do it in ignorance but nevertheless it blasphemy.

Oh, You say it, But you need to do it yourself.

You replace the work of the HS with men (who are the only ones who can teach you)
You replace the HS with a man (baptizm in water, not the spirit)
You replace the HS with a wafer and cup (literal blood and flesh which can never give man life as apposed to the words of spirit and truth which WILL give man life eternal)

Your the one who needs to wake up my friend, It is not me elevating myself above the spirit. it is me bowing myself to the spirit. You and your church are the ones elevating yourselves over the HS.

The god you are following is yourself. You have developed a wholly personal gospel and incorporated Luthers notion of "faith only" into your personal gospel.

no my friend, You have done this personal gospel of self. You are promoting self, your good works, and your sacramental system of righteousness so you can stand in front of God on your own merit.

I am bowing myself to the personal God who came and took the penalty I deserve so I could be set free, and he adopted me into his family based on HIS work and not mine.

Luther did not promote faith minus works, Paul did, Jesus did, As did God. Even david understood this basic gospel fact, when he knew clearly the things of the law could never save him. Maybe one day you will find this out also.

the Church you are denying is not Rome, but the Church Christ established at Pentecost and has existed since. Rome split off from that Church. But then you are not too enlighened on history either, so you might have missed that as well. You as well as a lot of other Protestants are still revolting against Rome. I would think that even with sola scriptura, a denomination could develop a gospel that would be positive and not anti-rome. Rome still has a lot more correct, than most protestant denominations.

1. I am not revolting or protesting rome, I do not need to, They can do nothing to me so stop puffing yourself up thinking this is all about you. It is not. It is about the God of heaven and our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
2. Rome did not start at pentecost. Christ church started in genesis 3: 5 and has been ever since.
3. The church started at pentecost did not replace HS baptism with water, Did not promote the eucharist, Did not hold Mary as queen of heaven and a Goddess herself. Did not promote a sacramental system of works for salvation, did not demand penance of its followers etc etc.

Rome paganized the church in 300 AD. And you are to busy trying to follow a church and the men in that church who have decieved you, you can not even see it.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35, 38-39; Philippians 1:6;1 Peter 1:4-5), and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirms that doctrine.


If we could lose our salvation, then we could NEVER EVER get it back Hebrews 6:4-6

If it is possible to sin after salvation, then repent from that sin, and be brought back, then salvation was never lost in the 1st place.

A father does not disown his child every time they make a mistake. No! He disciplines them, but they remain loved, and remain His child.

Amen bro,

why can;t people see this, why do they want to make God out to be some evil man who would disown his own adopted children because they happen to mess up..

I will never get or understand it.

 

[mailmandan]

The gospel which is to be obeyed is "Repent and believe!" (Mk 1:15)

In Romans 10:16, we read: But they have not all OBEYED the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has BELIEVED our report?" We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16). If we don't repent then we will not believe the gospel.

 

[Vaudeville]

but the context will tell you what the subject would be.

In Titus 3:5 the works of Righteousness are those Christ did on our behalf, fulfiling the law, and saved mankind from death and sin. It is not refering to the works of righteousness which a believer does as in I John 3:7.
I don't know what works of merit would even be so the person who wrote it would be best to answer it.

what a stretch! the context tells us exactly that we are not saved by works of righteousness a believer does. paul goes on to discuss good works which are profitable unto men. they have nothing to do with the subject of salvation which is:

Titus 3
3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.
13 Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.
14 And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.


over and out.

 

[notuptome]

well, actually I agree with what you said, so how am I underestimating God's gift of salvation?

By your efforts to add to what Christ has done. Salvation is not conditioned on anything except Gods mercy and grace.

When I surrendered myself to Christ I became His and no longer mine own. I cannot wrest myself from Him nor would I ever desire to do so. There is nothing in heaven nor earth that can remove me from Him.

It will be His joy to present me before His Father in heaven as one of His own. think about that little goodie.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Cassian]

Oh, You say it, But you need to do it yourself.

You replace the work of the HS with men (who are the only ones who can teach you)
You replace the HS with a man (baptizm in water, not the spirit)
You replace the HS with a wafer and cup (literal blood and flesh which can never give man life as apposed to the words of spirit and truth which WILL give man life eternal)

Your the one who needs to wake up my friend, It is not me elevating myself above the spirit. it is me bowing myself to the spirit. You and your church are the ones elevating yourselves over the HS.



no my friend, You have done this personal gospel of self. You are promoting self, your good works, and your sacramental system of righteousness so you can stand in front of God on your own merit.

I am bowing myself to the personal God who came and took the penalty I deserve so I could be set free, and he adopted me into his family based on HIS work and not mine.

Luther did not promote faith minus works, Paul did, Jesus did, As did God. Even david understood this basic gospel fact, when he knew clearly the things of the law could never save him. Maybe one day you will find this out also.



1. I am not revolting or protesting rome, I do not need to, They can do nothing to me so stop puffing yourself up thinking this is all about you. It is not. It is about the God of heaven and our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
2. Rome did not start at pentecost. Christ church started in genesis 3: 5 and has been ever since.
3. The church started at pentecost did not replace HS baptism with water, Did not promote the eucharist, Did not hold Mary as queen of heaven and a Goddess herself. Did not promote a sacramental system of works for salvation, did not demand penance of its followers etc etc.

Rome paganized the church in 300 AD. And you are to busy trying to follow a church and the men in that church who have decieved you, you can not even see it.

I feel sorry for you.

Besides not being scriptural with most of your comments, they are also historically false as well. Some of your comments shows the Gnosticism that the early Church fought against for almost 300 years. Seems false teachings keep repeating themselves.

You are also still mischaracterizing this whole discussion which also shows your ignorance of a topic that is actually being discussed. The only way you can make a point is to create a strawman.

Then typical of most Protestants who need something to denigrate to validate their own false teachings, pick on Rome. Your understanding of Rome and the history of the Church leaves much to be desired, even though I am not Roman Catholic.

Your post is void of any factual content with a lot of unsupported assertions which are the only thing left for you since you cannot disprove the OP with facts. Very typical of false teachers, just keep repeating the unfounded assertions to deflect that no facts are available. One should not let facts get in the way of developing a theory.

I can understand you are very comfortable in your man-made theory of salvation. You have constructed it so you can guarantee your salvation, from what remains to be seen. For the most part you have a form of religion that you could not validate outside of your own personal philosophy, which hardly makes it the historical Gospel of Christ given once, for all, for all time. You don't even want to give credit where credit is due, namely Luther and the early Reformers, ignoring more historical facts. Maybe you should take Luther up on cutting James out of the Bible since you have so much trouble with what it says, just like him.
Bottom line, you have a long way to go in understanding scripture and history of the Church.

 

[Cassian]

what a stretch! the context tells us exactly that we are not saved by works of righteousness a believer does. paul goes on to discuss good works which are profitable unto men. they have nothing to do with the subject of salvation which is:

Titus 3
3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.
13 Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.
14 And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.


over and out.

Your ignorance and misunderstanding is showing again. The text is very clear, it is speaking about Christ and what Christ has done in the first phrase. Christ came into this world, His love of mankind appeared to redeem this world and every single human being. This salvation of righteousness was not by anything man did but according to His mercy. Who did God have mercy upon, all men Rom 11:32, gave the Gift to all men Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22, Rom 5:6-10, Christ came to reconcile the world to God, Rom 3:23-25, II Cor 5:18-19.
This is the Gift of salvation that most of you don't even recognize, it is the Salvation of the world that we celebrate of Christ's coming. It is the salvation by grace, not of man. It is what Christ accomplished for us through His Incarnation, which you also don't understand.

If you can understand some scripture and what Salvation actually consists and then the purpose or the why of that salvation we can begin to speak about the topic. This is the (past tense) you're speak about. This is the eternal existence that Christ gave to all men which will be consummated on the last day with the resurrection of all men. John 6:39, I Cor 15:53. This is the Incarnation and resurrection that Titus is refering to in the first phrase if Titus 3:5.

Then you can move to vs 8, 14 where good works are fruitful and necessary for one's personal salvation of their soul when we enter INTO Christ by baptism. We begin the relationship with Christ which is all about the salvation of our soul.

 

[Elin]

We are not examining teaching originating after the gospel writings.
We are examining the gospel writings themselves.
How did you miss that?

Elin,

Yes, I did not miss that. But
the Apostles did not write down everything that they taught to the early Church. Do you have all the exact copy of all the teachings, sermons Paul preached, taugth in Corinth for three years before he wrote the first letter?
Same for Ephesus. To actually know what these letters meant in the context of the whole Gospel given, the Oral teachings, we need the reports of the early Church.
We need their explanations of what they were taught.

So what are the Scriptures, chopped liver?

All that you say boils down to the omission of one basic Biblical principle; i.e.,

everything alleged to be taught by the apostles will agree with what is taught by the apostles in the NT,
for the Word of God does not contradict itself between what is written and what was orally transmitted.

That is the position you are in--alleging teachings by the apostles which contradict their NT writings.

And you feel free to ignore your contradictions of the NT because of your false belief that something apart from Scripture has the authority to override what it sates.

Your self-evident error is an irresolvable contra-Biblical difference between us,
which removes all bases upon which to examine the Scriptures with you.

After all, it was meant to be a Tradtion, something passed down from one generation to the next by teaching and preaching, not be written text.

And you know this how?

That is really lame,
in light of the fact that God's Word in the OT was written down for his people,
and was not entrusted to oral transmission alone, and that record goes all the way back to the origin
of the earth and mankind, as given to Moses by God, as was everything that Moses recorded.

On what basis, other than your lame reasoning, do you assume that God would not have his word
written for his NT people, rather than entrusted to oral transmission alone?

Your false beliefs allow you to contradict the word of God written with impunity,
resulting in your false, twice-condemned gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Your self-created blindness has barred your own door to God's truth in his Word written.

You are wasting your time and ours here.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Besides not being scriptural with most of your comments, they are also historically false as well. Some of your comments shows the Gnosticism that the early Church fought against for almost 300 years. Seems false teachings keep repeating themselves.

continuing to follow in your catholic spoonfed roots, you do not even gnow what gnostics believed or taught. The believed that through gaining knowledge they could free themselves. They also taught many other things which is nothing like the things I believe.

why do you not figure this out. then come back to me.

You are also still mischaracterizing this whole discussion which also shows your ignorance of a topic that is actually being discussed. The only way you can make a point is to create a strawman.

Oh, Like you just did? I was just responding to a comment you made, as usual, you do not want to stck to the discussion, but continue to attack with no meat. And then you blame someone else for doing what you yourself are doing.

Then typical of most Protestants who need something to denigrate to validate their own false teachings, pick on Rome. Your understanding of Rome and the history of the Church leaves much to be desired, even though I am not Roman Catholic.

pick on rome, poor you, you are just attacked so viciously.

Get over yourself. If my belief offends you, that just too bad. Live with it, believe what you want, your belief does nt offend me, How could it? It will not keep me from heaven. Your th eone attacking not me.

Your post is void of any factual content with a lot of unsupported assertions which are the only thing left for you since you cannot disprove the OP with facts. Very typical of false teachers, just keep repeating the unfounded assertions to deflect that no facts are available. One should not let facts get in the way of developing a theory.

hm. Actually my post if full of facts. and as usual, you make claims they are false. but do not refute them, but continue to attack. this to most people would make everyone see that you can not defend your position. And I must be right, if I was so eroniously in error. you could easily show where I erred, and not resort to strawmen attacks.

And you want people to listen to you.. HA HA.,

I can understand you are very comfortable in your man-made theory of salvation. You have constructed it so you can guarantee your salvation, from what remains to be seen. For the most part you have a form of religion that you could not validate outside of your own personal philosophy, which hardly makes it the historical Gospel of Christ given once, for all, for all time. You don't even want to give credit where credit is due, namely Luther and the early Reformers, ignoring more historical facts. Maybe you should take Luther up on cutting James out of the Bible since you have so much trouble with what it says, just like him.
Bottom line, you have a long way to go in understanding scripture and history of the Church.

and again, You just attack with a bunch of fluff.

I am not guaranteeing my salvation. I could not do such a thing, all I can do is guarantee my eternal damnation.

It is up to God to keep his promise based on his work not mine.

Your the one trying to save yourself. Not me.

and again, Considering you did not oppose anything I said, but could only attack. I think people can see how truthful what I said was.

are you ever going to post anything which is not full of attack, strawman and fluff?? or is that above your ability?

 

[Elin]

If you think so, please help your buddies who after two threads
still have not come up with any evidence to show that faith only has always been the teaching of scripture. The best they can do is bring it back to Luther who started the idea. Can you cite any early Church writings where the Church actually taught and believed this theory.
You can disagree all you desire, but if no evidence it means very little.

Non responsive.

And in terms of your false representation of the meaning of "works" in the NT,
they never will.

But in terms of the NT meaning of "works" as works of the law, they have presented
Ro 1:17, 3:21; Eph 2:8-9.

However, your self-created blindness bars your own door to seeing God's truth
in his NT word written.

You are wasting your time and ours here.

 

[Cassian]

So what are the Scriptures, chopped liver?

All that you say boils down to the omission of one basic Biblical principle; i.e.,

everything alleged to be taught by the apostles will agree with what is taught by the apostles in the NT,
for the Word of God does not contradict itself between what is written and what was orally transmitted.

That is the position you are in--alleging teachings by the apostles which contradict their NT writings.

And you feel free to ignore your contradictions of the NT because of your false belief that something apart from Scripture has the authority to override what it sates.

How can scripture be apart or contradict the source from which they were taken. I know of no teaching that contradicts scripture. They confirm scripture which all was guarded and preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ. To doubt means you don't trust the Holy Spirit can keep His word.

Your self-evident error is an irresolvable contra-Biblical difference between us,
which removes all bases upon which to examine the Scriptures with you.

No, you have a clear option to the Truth. You no longer need doubt that your personal interpretation which you cannot validate except your own opinion. Thus all teachings of scripture, using sola scriptura, are of equal value. Mormonism is as valid an interpretation as Calvinism, or Lutheranism, or Jehovah Witnessess. You can no more declare Mormonism false than you need to declare your own interpretation false since it is derived by the same method and ones personal opinion.

That is really lame

,
in light of the fact that God's Word in the OT was written down for his people,
and was not entrusted to oral transmission alone, and that record goes all the way back to the origin
of the earth and mankind, as given to Moses by God, as was everything that Moses recorded.

It was not written immediately. Even at that the Isrealites were taught orally as well as to what it meant. Moses was not just presented 10 commandments without explanation.

On what basis, other than your lame reasoning, do you assume that God would not have his word
written for his NT people, rather than entrusted to oral transmission alone?

Outside of the Gospels which were written almost at the end of the century, none of them were written specifically for the purpose of having something written. Every one of Pauls letters are just that. They are not Gospel treatises but exhortations, corrections of his earlier teachings. They did not need to be interpreted as you are attempting to do, because they already knew and understood what they meant. If God wanted them actually purposely written the Apostles would have written it down in textbook format and included all the meanings and explanations.

Your false beliefs allow you to contradict the word of God written with impunity,
resulting in your false, twice-condemned gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

that at this point is an unfounded assertion. Show me a doctrine of the Church from the first century to present that has changed, and if changed by what man? Obviously they contradict your personal interpretation but your personal intepretation is contradicted by several other thousands within the sola scriptura milieu. At this point whatever you have interpreted, or accepted some other man's interpretation, like Luther or Calvin, it is not more or less valid than Joseph Smith's interpretation, or Whites, or Eddy, Russell and many others.

Your self-created blindness has barred your own door to God's truth in his Word written.

which truth would you recommend? Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglism, how about Eddy, Russell, et al. Ah, yes, the best, create one of my own, after all we should not take anything from men, except ourselves, a man. I presume you will claim to be a him/her.

You are wasting your time and ours here.

I'd say it is you who is wasting time and maybe your eternal life.

 

[Elin]

To teach salvation based upon your own works is heretical!....

1. NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HAS HE SAVED US
2. IN THE GRACE YOU ARE, HAVING BEEN SAVED OUT OF FAITH, NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST
3. IF YOU BELIEVE WITH YOUR MIND AND CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH....THOU SHALT BE SAVED!
4. Galatians chapters 1, 3--->Faith plus works =false heretical doctrine with no ability to save!
5. Romans 8:1 NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST---LAST PART OF VERSE ADDED AND NOT IN ORIGINAL TEXT
6. DAVID AND ABRAHAM--->DESCRIBE ACURATELY THAT GRACE AND SALVATION AND RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED UNTO MAN WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW<----WORKS
7. NUMEROUS SCRIPTURES THAT POINT ONLY TO FAITH (BELIEF) FOR TOTAL SALVATION

I hope you unbelievers have enough works and that your works exceed the PHARISEES in righteousness and that you are not 1 work short.....NO HOPE OR ASSURANCE IN WORKS!

How many of you were drawn in with these words? Angered? Embittered?

Probably about the same number as Jewish leaders who were drawn in with Jesus' words.

Your point?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How can scripture be apart or contradict the source from which they were taken. I know of no teaching that contradicts scripture. They confirm scripture which all was guarded and preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ. To doubt means you don't trust the Holy Spirit can keep His word.[/COLOR]

No, you have a clear option to the Truth. You no longer need doubt that your personal interpretation which you cannot validate except your own opinion. Thus all teachings of scripture, using sola scriptura, are of equal value. Mormonism is as valid an interpretation as Calvinism, or Lutheranism, or Jehovah Witnessess. You can no more declare Mormonism false than you need to declare your own interpretation false since it is derived by the same method and ones personal opinion.

It was not written immediately. Even at that the Isrealites were taught orally as well as to what it meant. Moses was not just presented 10 commandments without explanation.

Outside of the Gospels which were written almost at the end of the century, none of them were written specifically for the purpose of having something written. Every one of Pauls letters are just that. They are not Gospel treatises but exhortations, corrections of his earlier teachings. They did not need to be interpreted as you are attempting to do, because they already knew and understood what they meant. If God wanted them actually purposely written the Apostles would have written it down in textbook format and included all the meanings and explanations.

that at this point is an unfounded assertion. Show me a doctrine of the Church from the first century to present that has changed, and if changed by what man? Obviously they contradict your personal interpretation but your personal intepretation is contradicted by several other thousands within the sola scriptura milieu. At this point whatever you have interpreted, or accepted some other man's interpretation, like Luther or Calvin, it is not more or less valid than Joseph Smith's interpretation, or Whites, or Eddy, Russell and many others.

which truth would you recommend? Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglism, how about Eddy, Russell, et al. Ah, yes, the best, create one of my own, after all we should not take anything from men, except ourselves, a man. I presume you will claim to be a him/her.

I'd say it is you who is wasting time and maybe your eternal life.

more fluff, More attack. No content.

(shakes head)

 

[Elin]

The main problem with these posts on salvation and works is the readers and posters
confusing faith with salvation. Think on it, that is meditate on it.

True faith, as distinct from counterfeit faith (Mt 7:21-23), does save from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on one's sin at the Final Judgment, because through true faith, one's sin has been forgiven.

 

[Cassian]

continuing to follow in your catholic spoonfed roots, you do not even gnow what gnostics believed or taught. The believed that through gaining knowledge they could free themselves. They also taught many other things which is nothing like the things I believe.

Actually, precisely what you believe. They believed that the material world was evil. That the only good in man was his spirit. You in your diatribe denigrated what Christ did to the material world, redeemed it, and sanctified it by His own baptism. That the creation He created could and would be used to convey His grace.
Zwingli was the first protestant Gnostic that separated the sacraments outside of faith, and made them just ceremonies. All protestanst have since followed suit, including you based on your statements.

why do you not figure this out. then come back to me.

You are still the one that needs help.





pick on rome, poor you, you are just attacked so viciously.

Get over yourself. If my belief offends you, that just too bad. Live with it, believe what you want, your belief does nt offend me, How could it? It will not keep me from heaven. Your th eone attacking not me.[/quote] It offends me not because it is irrelevant to me since I am not Roman Catholic. It just amuses me that Protestants always feel the need to attack the RCC as if it helps their cause.

hm. Actually my post if full of facts. and as usual, you make claims they are false. but do not refute them, but continue to attack. this to most people would make everyone see that you can not defend your position. And I must be right, if I was so eroniously in error. you could easily show where I erred, and not resort to strawmen attacks.

I did, nothing you stated historically is correct. History has proven that over the last 2000 years already. I could spend a lot of space here to correct you but it would definitely side track this thread, which has already been sidetracked enough. You have failed to prove your case on faith only, and when the historical fact was brought up you rejected/ignored history as well.

I am not guaranteeing my salvation. I could not do such a thing, all I can do is guarantee my eternal damnation.

How do you even know if you are correct. Mormonism might be the correct one, since they also claim to be scriptural and Smith recieved a vision from the Holy Spirit. Even the New Age says it is the latest, how can you even prove them incorrect? All you can do is prove that they are different than yours, but not incorrect. This is the same argument you are using here. No sola scripturist will ever be able to prove his point is correct because it is ultimately based on his own opinion or acceptance of another man's opinion.

It is up to God to keep his promise based on his work not mine.

Your the one trying to save yourself. Not me.

first, that is based on your misunderstanding which has been shown repeatedly in this thread. You don't even understand your oppositions understanding. You consistantly mischaracterize it, or just create strawmen.

and again, Considering you did not oppose anything I said, but could only attack. I think people can see how truthful what I said was.

ignorance is bliss, I guess.

I'm still looking for evidence that Paul taught "faith only". Two threads and not a shred of evidence. I also understand in saying that, that you cannot do it. Historically, the idea was originated by the Reformers along with their other solas. So much for Gospel Truth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Actually, precisely what you believe. They believed that the material world was evil. That the only good in man was his spirit. You in your diatribe denigrated what Christ did to the material world, redeemed it, and sanctified it by His own baptism. That the creation He created could and would be used to convey His grace.
Zwingli was the first protestant Gnostic that separated the sacraments outside of faith, and made them just ceremonies. All protestanst have since followed suit, including you based on your statements.

You are still the one that needs help.

[/B]



pick on rome, poor you, you are just attacked so viciously.

Get over yourself. If my belief offends you, that just too bad. Live with it, believe what you want, your belief does nt offend me, How could it? It will not keep me from heaven. Your th eone attacking not me. It offends me not because it is irrelevant to me since I am not Roman Catholic. It just amuses me that Protestants always feel the need to attack the RCC as if it helps their cause.


I did, nothing you stated historically is correct. History has proven that over the last 2000 years already. I could spend a lot of space here to correct you but it would definitely side track this thread, which has already been sidetracked enough. You have failed to prove your case on faith only, and when the historical fact was brought up you rejected/ignored history as well.


How do you even know if you are correct. Mormonism might be the correct one, since they also claim to be scriptural and Smith recieved a vision from the Holy Spirit. Even the New Age says it is the latest, how can you even prove them incorrect? All you can do is prove that they are different than yours, but not incorrect. This is the same argument you are using here. No sola scripturist will ever be able to prove his point is correct because it is ultimately based on his own opinion or acceptance of another man's opinion.

first, that is based on your misunderstanding which has been shown repeatedly in this thread. You don't even understand your oppositions understanding. You consistantly mischaracterize it, or just create strawmen.

ignorance is bliss, I guess.

I'm still looking for evidence that Paul taught "faith only". Two threads and not a shred of evidence. I also understand in saying that, that you cannot do it. Historically, the idea was originated by the Reformers along with their other solas. So much for Gospel Truth.

more fluff, no facts. continued misrepresentation of what someone believes.

you should give up