Catholicism vs Protestantism

[Dino246]

Yes they have installed him the patron saint creator, as their scapegoat used for denying the gospel of grace . Called a daysman in Job. God is not a man as us. Daysman a place were even the Son of man Jesus refused to stand as a abomination of desolation .

While the pope certainly is not a mediator, Jesus is the mediator, and He did not deny being such. However, it has nothing to do with Job.

The father rebuked Satan and said get behind Him.

No, Jesus said, "Get behind Me, Satan!". You have the identities of the persons of God all mixed up.

he was forgiven of his blasphemy against the temporal things see Jesus. as the Son of man .

Peter's words are never called "blasphemy" in Scripture.

Blasphemy against the unseen Son of God is not forgivable, ever

That is not in Scripture anywhere. What IS written in Scripture is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven.

 

[Dan_473]

Base on those verses yes

Thanks for the answer, but yes for which?


They have a chance at heaven.

Or

They are automatically condemned to hell.

 

[Dan_473]

So what is : " Muslim is in the plan of salvation because adore abraham god mean?"

Well, I would like to continue going through this link step by step

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/o...ally-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church

and hopefully it will answer your question.


If we leap ahead, we may end up with a wrong conclusion.


Are you willing to go step-by-step?

 

[Dan_473]

So you think it may already Church in Rome at that time

The way Luke wrote, I don't think that the case, every where if there is Christian they always come to visit Paul if he in town, people ask Paul stay for 2 week , , tell how Christian love Paul

And when he arrive at Rome, Luke not mention if there was welcome party for him.
Very not likely there was already Christian there or Luke change his writing model.

To me Luke is very detail compare with Matthew or mark.

There was a welcoming party!

"At last we came to Rome. The believers there had heard we were coming. They traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. When Paul saw these people, he thanked God for them and was encouraged by them. "

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28&version=NIRV


Paul doesn't stay with the Christians there because he is a prisoner.

That's what I meant by a "guest of Caesar".

Like some people that steal cars here get to stay in a special resort run by the government.

I'm joking, it's called jail, prison.


Acts 28: 17 … I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

 

[garee]

While the pope certainly is not a mediator, Jesus is the mediator, and He did not deny being such. However, it has nothing to do with Job.


No, Jesus said, "Get behind Me, Satan!". You have the identities of the persons of God all mixed up.


Peter's words are never called "blasphemy" in Scripture.


That is not in Scripture anywhere. What IS written in Scripture is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven.

Sure it has everything to do with trying to serve two masters(impossible) 1# The corrupted flesh seen the temporal and the unseen Holy Spirit .

One master in heaven the father unseen . Jesus as the Son of man refused to stand in the Holy place of faith as the one Good Master. He said one is the Good Master the one unseen, God.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

God is not a man as us and neither is there any fleshly infallible teaching Master set between God not seen and man seen .

We must be careful how we hear that we might fear him aright. The flesh profits for nothing. We fear Him because with him working in us we can finish his good will . If he was to take into account one sin against Him who could stand in the holy place of grace and receive mercy ? Again the reason we do fear. . . with him there is plenty of forgiveness as David said in the Psalms .

Job 9:32-34 King James Version (KJV) For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any "daysman" betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both. Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me:


John 6: 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

The father unseen taught, the Son seen . The Son is not a daysman.



The Son of man Jesus had the treasure of the power in Him But he would never say it was in respect to what the eyes see and not that which is hiden from the eye the spirutl understanding in parables They teach us how to walk by faith just as he designed proiphecy to perform as it works in thes bodies of death . As the Son of Man jesus stood in the same corutible space under the Sun as we do today

 

[garee]

No, Jesus said, "Get behind Me, Satan!". You have the identities of the persons of God all mixed up.

Yes, exactly those are the words the glorious Father put on His prophet and apostles Jesus's lips the meat of the word. The same kind of power he put on lips of Balaam's donkey signified as a unbeliever no redemption. . Living words that worked to stop the madness of that false prophet.(Balaam)

God's will is not served by the hand of sinful men . He can use a unbeliever to bring his new tongue, the gospel as well as one that is trusting in the word. No power comes from the messenger who plants or waters.

The Son of man has no power to rebuke the spirit "Satan" The father of many antichrists.

Are what you call the persons of God OK now or still mixed up.? Which way up or upside down? .

 

[Jackson123]

Thanks for the answer, but yes for which?


They have a chance at heaven.

Or

They are automatically condemned to hell.

I don't know the verse only say that to whole that never hear the gospel will be judge base on their conscious

It doesn't state they have a chance go to heaven

 

[Jackson123]

Well, I would like to continue going through this link step by step

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/o...ally-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church

and hopefully it will answer your question.


If we leap ahead, we may end up with a wrong conclusion.


Are you willing to go step-by-step?

What ever, if you want to do step by step or to the point but please answere my question

What is muslim in the plan of salvation mean

 

[Jackson123]

There was a welcoming party!

"At last we came to Rome. The believers there had heard we were coming. They traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. When Paul saw these people, he thanked God for them and was encouraged by them. "

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28&version=NIRV


Paul doesn't stay with the Christians there because he is a prisoner.

That's what I meant by a "guest of Caesar".

Like some people that steal cars here get to stay in a special resort run by the government.

I'm joking, it's called jail, prison.


Acts 28: 17 … I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

15 And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.

It doesn't say meet in Rome

16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Read verse 16

Seem to me if the meeting happen in Rome than Luke must say

And when we arrived at Rome people from appii forum come visit us

I believe the meeting happen in appii forum and this people is not from Rome but from serounding appii because the distance from Rome is 43 miles

I google the biblical time map and yes on the way to Rome, Paul passing appii forum on the way to Rome

https://bibleatlas.org/forum_of_appius.htm

 

[cv5]

Mostly a casting of Christus Victor. If it were as simple as Christ died as a legal substitute, I would accept penal substitution alongside Christus Victor because that is Biblical. the aspect I reject is the idea that it was a satisfaction for God's wrath. The picture that conjures for me is a pagan deity demanding virgin blood even when it is smoothed out to claim Christ's role as our king was in mind.

I must tell you that your view is gravely in error. Abel's bloody prescribed sacrafices were understood to be substitutionary....by Abel. Cain rejected this requirement and HE was rejected.
Many of the Mosaic sacrafices were patently substitutionary. Then there is the book of Hebrews that removes all doubt on the issue.

 

[Jackson123]

I think they are saying just the opposite.


From what you quoted in your post

"35. Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation."


And again

"...the Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation","


And

"The Christian faith confesses that God wants to lead all people to salvation, that Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no "other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved" (Acts 4:12)."


You might think they are contradicting themselves, but to say that they teach more than one path of salvation is not true.

You may partly correct but please read this

Quote from (part of 36)

That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent

End quote

Can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly remain an unfathomable

Catholic not sure if Jews must explicitly accept Jesus for salvation or not.

I am sure Jews must accept Jesus explicitly unless he never hear about Jesus et all than it may under category of Rome 2.

Let read further still in 5/37

Quote

Here we confront the mystery of God’s work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united

End quote

Not matter if missionary effort to convert Jews

Peter made missionary effort, so vatican not agree with her first pope

 

[cv5]

I read my Bible plenty, but I don't read into it the conclusions that you seem to. Luke 24 doesn't have Jesus listing out the books of the Old Testament, nor is there any contextual reason to infer that some declarative statement about the canon is being made. Simply that Jesus explained to those two men how what they knew already pointed to Him and the cross. Mentioning that there are Scriptures doesn't give what those Scriptures are, and no canon had been declared either Jewish or Christian. It's only by looking at the history and tradition of canonicity that we can determine what matches with the criteria that came to define what fit in the canon.

Are you kidding? When Jesus (and Paul) quote scripture....it is confirmed canon. Period. Furthermore, it is perfectly obvious that this included ALL the of books of Moses and Psalms and the Prophets extant in Jesus' generation. If you choose to narrow this down to only the books specifically quoted from....fine. But you are in for an uphill battle doing so.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I must tell you that your view is gravely in error. Abel's bloody prescribed sacrafices were understood to be substitutionary....by Abel. Cain rejected this requirement and HE was rejected.
Many of the Mosaic sacrafices were patently substitutionary. Then there is the book of Hebrews that removes all doubt on the issue.

Where are you getting the idea that Abel understood his sacrifices to be substitutionary, or that Cains was rejected because it wasn't bloody? Cains was told by God why his sacrifice wasn't accepted, and it was because of who Cain was not anything to do with the sacrifice itself.

"“Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, [e]will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Hebrews tells us why Abels sacrifice in other words, and that is this:
By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

So it is faith, and not the offering itself, that marked the difference between Cain and Abel in their sacrifices.

And if we look to what Jesus said about sacrifices we have the following:
If only you had known the meaning of 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Jesus surely served as a legal substitute, but if you think God is beholden to lavishing out punishment rather than showing mercy and compassion I'm afraid you missed the heart of our Creator.

 

[Dino246]

Yes, exactly those are the words the glorious Father put on His prophet and apostles Jesus's lips the meat of the word. The same kind of power he put on lips of Balaam's donkey signified as a unbeliever no redemption. . Living words that worked to stop the madness of that false prophet.(Balaam)

This is evidence of your deep confusion.

 

[Dino246]

Sure it has everything to do with trying to serve two masters(impossible)

My post has nothing to do with that.

1# The corrupted flesh seen the temporal and the unseen Holy Spirit .

The visible flesh of Jesus was not corrupted.

One master in heaven the father unseen . Jesus as the Son of man refused to stand in the Holy place of faith as the one Good Master.

No He did not, as I have told you many times.

The Son is not a daysman.

No; the Son is the mediator. Scripture clearly tells us that, but you keep denying it.

 

[cv5]

Where are you getting the idea that Abel understood his sacrifices to be substitutionary, or that Cains was rejected because it wasn't bloody? Cains was told by God why his sacrifice wasn't accepted, and it was because of who Cain was not anything to do with the sacrifice itself.

"“Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, [e]will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Hebrews tells us why Abels sacrifice in other words, and that is this:
By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

So it is faith, and not the offering itself, that marked the difference between Cain and Abel in their sacrifices.

And if we look to what Jesus said about sacrifices we have the following:
If only you had known the meaning of 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Jesus surely served as a legal substitute, but if you think God is beholden to lavishing out punishment rather than showing mercy and compassion I'm afraid you missed the heart of our Creator.

Thank you for proving my point. Abel put his faith in Gods plan of substitutionary atonement and he by virtue of his sacrafice was accepted. Cain was not rejected because of who he was, rather what he became (an apostate and willful rebel) because of what he failed to do (prescribed worship in faith) and what he did do (improvised vain worship by
his own works and plan of salvation).

 

[garee]

The visible flesh of Jesus was not corrupted.

Then where is he hiding? That was Peter's hope with John and started a oral tradition as a lie.

He said it profits for zero and reveled the one master not seen..

Why do you want it to profit? Whats the hope of a dead body without the spirit essence of life? Museum piece? Hang it on a door nail ?

 

[Bbrdrd]

Thank you for proving my point. Abel put his faith in Gods plan of substitutionary atonement and he by virtue of his sacrafice was accepted. Cain was not rejected because of who he was, rather what he became (an apostate and willful rebel) because of what he failed to do (prescribed worship in faith) and what he did do (improvised vain worship by
his own works and plan of salvation).

Where in the text does it say these things? Cain's rejection was linked with his unwillingness to master the sin inside of him, which is a part of who he is. As far as I'm aware nothing in the text says God prescribed blood, that's something you're reading back into the text in a circular fashion.

 

[garee]

No He did not, as I have told you many times.

No He did not. . . what?

No; the Son is the mediator. Scripture clearly tells us that, but you keep denying it.

A infallible teaching mediator. . a daysman? Or one sent like the apostle Jesus as mediator of the word. like the rest of the apostles mediators of the word.? Abel the first mentioned.

 

[cv5]

Where in the text does it say these things? Cain's rejection was linked with his unwillingness to master the sin inside of him, which is a part of who he is. As far as I'm aware nothing in the text says God prescribed blood, that's something you're reading back into the text in a circular fashion.

The subsitutionary bloody sacrafice is the most predominant doctrine in all of Scripture. The Genesis 4 account is no exception and undoubtedly typifies the same. Quite frankly I am shocked at your dismissal or misunderstanding of Gen 4. The NT commentary on the matter removes all doubt.