What was finished, and this is how I've come too understand it, was the only path we have to be reconciled to God. That was the whole point of everything and the only way God's infinite love, mercy, and justice could come together. I'm sorry but when my Lord says "it is finished" then yes it was really finished, Jesus wasn't a liar He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Please explain to me exactly HOW you became born again while in the CC. What exactly did you BELIEVE or DO that you believe caused you to become born again?
I became born again the very moment that I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in CHRIST ALONE as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation several years ago and this was IN SPITE of what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the plan of salvation and NOT BECAUSE of what they teach.
The CC perverts the gospel of Christ, had added to God's word and lead me astray all the years I attended there. Maybe that explains why I have such dislike for the CC? Why in the world would I defend the CC?
Any church that perverts the gospel needs to be exposed. My church does not pervert the gospel, so it's mainly works salvationists who would persecute it. If you fully understood the truth about Roman Catholicism, then you would not be so soft on the CC.
They need to read Hebrews 9:27.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. As Mike Gendron points out in his article on purgatory - Purgatory is a travesty on the justice of God and a disgraceful fabrication that robs Christ Jesus of His glory and honor. He alone satisfied divine justice, once and for all, by the perfect and finished sacrifice of Himself. The fatal deception of Purgatory blinds Catholics from the glorious Gospel of grace. It is one of Satan's many lies which keep his captives from knowing and trusting the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. - Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable by Mike Gendron - The Urbans in Mexico
Hello! YES I DID. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).
◄ 4100. pisteuó ►
Strong's Concordance
pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in
Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.
I told you what it means, multiple times. Completely? Works are necessary for what? Works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of believing in Him/faith in Christ, but not the essence of believing in Him/faith in Christ and not the means of our salvation. So I ask you again, works are necessary for what?
That would be the FRUIT of BELIEVE and not the essence of BELIEVE. This is where you try to "shoe horn" works "into" BELIEVE, just as the Roman Catholic church tries to "infuse" works into believe/faith and teaches that we are saved by BOTH believe/faith AND works. Believe/faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrate there is no root. Simple!
Works are the demonstrative evidence that we BELIEVE IN JESUS, yet the definition of believe is not works.
He's not my friend, but regardless, he was not correct about the CC not teaching salvation by works. He said that we are saved by faith as long as faith is properly defined, then he went on to say that faith INCLUDES the check list of works that he listed which equates to saying that we are saved by faith (his version of faith) + that list of works that he "infused" into faith. Sugar coated double talk.
It's not about Catholic theologians being dumb, just deceived. Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT WORKS, yet Catholics say we are saved by grace through faith INFUSED WITH WORKS, which is not what Paul said. I don't hate works, I just put them in their proper place--subsequent to regeneration and salvation. Works come in as the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation. Are you figuring this out yet?
I accept that AFTER we have been saved by grace through faith, works then come in (Ephesians 2:8-10). *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.
I have explained that to you as well but apparently what I explain to you continues to go right over your head.
BTY it's actually Roman Catholics who muddle the different between Justification and Sanctification by confusing ongoing Sanctification with Justification. Go back and read post #9067 in the Not By Works thread and follow up with post #9079 - http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/146296-not-works-454.html
Works are the RESULT of salvation, not the means of salvation. Huge difference!
After hearing you agree with the Roman Catholic who included works into the definition of BELIEVE, hearing you say works are necessary is a loaded statement! Works are the necessary fruit that demonstrates we truly believe. If someone claims to have faith yet they have no works at all (given time to produce them) then they demonstrate they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not genuine faith, but that is still a far cry from saying we are saved by works.
The proper balance is man is saved through faith and not by works, yet genuine faith is evidenced by works.
Obedience is not forced or legalistic for genuine believers.
Yet how many of us are perfectly obedient, 100% of the time? So where does that leave us? What is the dividing line between heaven and hell? Sinless, perfect obedience/no sinless, perfect obedience? OR believes in Him/does not believe in Him? What did Jesus say in John 3:18?
I became born again the very moment that I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in CHRIST ALONE as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation several years ago and this was IN SPITE of what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the plan of salvation and NOT BECAUSE of what they teach.
The CC perverts the gospel of Christ, had added to God's word and lead me astray all the years I attended there. Maybe that explains why I have such dislike for the CC? Why in the world would I defend the CC?
Any church that perverts the gospel needs to be exposed. My church does not pervert the gospel, so it's mainly works salvationists who would persecute it. If you fully understood the truth about Roman Catholicism, then you would not be so soft on the CC.
They need to read Hebrews 9:27.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. As Mike Gendron points out in his article on purgatory - Purgatory is a travesty on the justice of God and a disgraceful fabrication that robs Christ Jesus of His glory and honor. He alone satisfied divine justice, once and for all, by the perfect and finished sacrifice of Himself. The fatal deception of Purgatory blinds Catholics from the glorious Gospel of grace. It is one of Satan's many lies which keep his captives from knowing and trusting the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. - Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable by Mike Gendron - The Urbans in Mexico
Hello! YES I DID. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).
◄ 4100. pisteuó ►
Strong's Concordance
pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in
Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.
I told you what it means, multiple times. Completely? Works are necessary for what? Works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of believing in Him/faith in Christ, but not the essence of believing in Him/faith in Christ and not the means of our salvation. So I ask you again, works are necessary for what?
That would be the FRUIT of BELIEVE and not the essence of BELIEVE. This is where you try to "shoe horn" works "into" BELIEVE, just as the Roman Catholic church tries to "infuse" works into believe/faith and teaches that we are saved by BOTH believe/faith AND works. Believe/faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrate there is no root. Simple!
Works are the demonstrative evidence that we BELIEVE IN JESUS, yet the definition of believe is not works.
He's not my friend, but regardless, he was not correct about the CC not teaching salvation by works. He said that we are saved by faith as long as faith is properly defined, then he went on to say that faith INCLUDES the check list of works that he listed which equates to saying that we are saved by faith (his version of faith) + that list of works that he "infused" into faith. Sugar coated double talk.
It's not about Catholic theologians being dumb, just deceived. Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT WORKS, yet Catholics say we are saved by grace through faith INFUSED WITH WORKS, which is not what Paul said. I don't hate works, I just put them in their proper place--subsequent to regeneration and salvation. Works come in as the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation. Are you figuring this out yet?
I accept that AFTER we have been saved by grace through faith, works then come in (Ephesians 2:8-10). *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.
I have explained that to you as well but apparently what I explain to you continues to go right over your head.
BTY it's actually Roman Catholics who muddle the different between Justification and Sanctification by confusing ongoing Sanctification with Justification. Go back and read post #9067 in the Not By Works thread and follow up with post #9079 - http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/146296-not-works-454.html Works are the RESULT of salvation, not the means of salvation. Huge difference!
After hearing you agree with the Roman Catholic who included works into the definition of BELIEVE, hearing you say works are necessary is a loaded statement! Works are the necessary fruit that demonstrates we truly believe. If someone claims to have faith yet they have no works at all (given time to produce them) then they demonstrate they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not genuine faith, but that is still a far cry from saying we are saved by works.
The proper balance is man is saved through faith and not by works, yet genuine faith is evidenced by works.
Obedience is not forced or legalistic for genuine believers.
Yet how many of us are perfectly obedient, 100% of the time? So where does that leave us? What is the dividing line between heaven and hell? Sinless, perfect obedience/no sinless, perfect obedience? OR believes in Him/does not believe in Him? What did Jesus say in John 3:18?
The heart of the matter is in the question "who or what is our authority about the doctrines of the Lord?"
It was quite simple before the Jews were sent to Babylon. The High priest was in the line of Aaron and the temple is where the worship was. They had ways of determining what was of God.
Then Jews were sent to Babylon and they created rabbis. The rabbis said they had authority to interpret scripture and what they said was as good as scripture. Christ said it wasn't.
The Catholic church says the same thing about the Pope, that he can speak for God. He can't.
Many Protestant churches are doing the same thing as the rabbis and the pope. They call it doctrine.
It was quite simple before the Jews were sent to Babylon. The High priest was in the line of Aaron and the temple is where the worship was. They had ways of determining what was of God.
Then Jews were sent to Babylon and they created rabbis. The rabbis said they had authority to interpret scripture and what they said was as good as scripture. Christ said it wasn't.
The Catholic church says the same thing about the Pope, that he can speak for God. He can't.
Many Protestant churches are doing the same thing as the rabbis and the pope. They call it doctrine.
W
I appreciate your good humor Huckleberry heh.
Yeah I agree that this relates to the crux of the differences. I think the question comes down to how do we believe that we receive Christ's redemption.
Again, to reiterate, Catholics are not doubting the sufficiency of Christ's work; we don't think we need to add to it or "repeat" it or that maybe it wasn't good enough to save me. We believe however that Christ's action of saving us involves us; that our freedom assisted by grace has a role in it. That is why I cited the passages that I did to you, as well as the passages I cited in response to the person who asked me how I believe we enter into eternal life.
Perhaps you could give me some of the passages that you have in mind which support your perspective?
Also my question would be, without doubting that Christ's work is sufficient, without doubting that God offers us His forgiveness, do we not believe that forgiveness needs to be freely received? And also that we have to attempt to convert our lifes, that is, to be forgiven but then go and sin no more (John 8:11)?
Could someone be saved if they at one point asked for forgiveness but at a later point refused to ask for forgiveness?
Can someone be saved who has "accepted Jesus", but later refuses to live the life of Christ? What about the people who called Him 'Lord, Lord' but did not care for the poor and thus are placed on His left in Matt. 25?
Why does Paul say to work out our salvation with "fear and trembling" if He is so utterly confident? Why does he mention the possibility that after all he has done he still finds it possible that he could fall away (1 Cor. 9:27)?
Again, this is not to argue against having a hopeful confidence, as I already explained. I just don't understand where the idea of a certainty beyond all possibility of error comes from.
I also don't understand how we deny the role of our freedom. Will we have freedom in Heaven? If so, how do we use it in perfect charity, as surely we must if Heaven is to be perfect and without sin? Does this not require a sanctification which requires free co-operation? So what about a person who is not willing to freely co-operate and die to themselves and live for Christ (Matt 10:37-8)?
None of this is meant to say that our actions gain for us our salvation, but it does mean that being saved means being brought into a participation in God's life, which requires being made God like, or atleast allowing God to begin the process in us, which we believe if unfinished in this life, would be finished in purgatory (that word is sure to set off alarms I know...).
Anyways maybe if you are able to answer a few of those questions I could understand your position better, and that would help me think things through a bit more. Thanks Huckleberry
Yeah I agree that this relates to the crux of the differences. I think the question comes down to how do we believe that we receive Christ's redemption.
Again, to reiterate, Catholics are not doubting the sufficiency of Christ's work; we don't think we need to add to it or "repeat" it or that maybe it wasn't good enough to save me. We believe however that Christ's action of saving us involves us; that our freedom assisted by grace has a role in it. That is why I cited the passages that I did to you, as well as the passages I cited in response to the person who asked me how I believe we enter into eternal life.
Perhaps you could give me some of the passages that you have in mind which support your perspective?
Also my question would be, without doubting that Christ's work is sufficient, without doubting that God offers us His forgiveness, do we not believe that forgiveness needs to be freely received? And also that we have to attempt to convert our lifes, that is, to be forgiven but then go and sin no more (John 8:11)?
Could someone be saved if they at one point asked for forgiveness but at a later point refused to ask for forgiveness?
Can someone be saved who has "accepted Jesus", but later refuses to live the life of Christ? What about the people who called Him 'Lord, Lord' but did not care for the poor and thus are placed on His left in Matt. 25?
Why does Paul say to work out our salvation with "fear and trembling" if He is so utterly confident? Why does he mention the possibility that after all he has done he still finds it possible that he could fall away (1 Cor. 9:27)?
Again, this is not to argue against having a hopeful confidence, as I already explained. I just don't understand where the idea of a certainty beyond all possibility of error comes from.
I also don't understand how we deny the role of our freedom. Will we have freedom in Heaven? If so, how do we use it in perfect charity, as surely we must if Heaven is to be perfect and without sin? Does this not require a sanctification which requires free co-operation? So what about a person who is not willing to freely co-operate and die to themselves and live for Christ (Matt 10:37-8)?
None of this is meant to say that our actions gain for us our salvation, but it does mean that being saved means being brought into a participation in God's life, which requires being made God like, or atleast allowing God to begin the process in us, which we believe if unfinished in this life, would be finished in purgatory (that word is sure to set off alarms I know...).
Anyways maybe if you are able to answer a few of those questions I could understand your position better, and that would help me think things through a bit more. Thanks Huckleberry
W
I guess my question would be, can we not admit that the world does not look super redeemed right now? Meaning, that there are still tons and tons of problems. That doesn't mean Christ's work wasn't good enough, it just means even though He has brought the "cure", we still have not fully received it yet. Honestly I just don't see how we can take one look at the world and still argue with that.
Thus, do we not agree that the New Creation, the New Jerusalem will look different than the present world? So what still needs to happen? Is there not still something "un-finished" with the whole project?
I think looking at the idea of the Kingdom of God is helpful here. The New Testmanet speaks of the Kingdom as already having arrived, and yet not fully arrived. Christ told us that the kingdom of God was amung us, and yet we pray "thy kingdom come".
So without necessarily agreeing with it, does it at least make sense how we could believe that Christ's work is indeed "finished", while still recognizing that there is more work to do in applying Christ's work to the sinful world (i.e us)?
Thus, do we not agree that the New Creation, the New Jerusalem will look different than the present world? So what still needs to happen? Is there not still something "un-finished" with the whole project?
I think looking at the idea of the Kingdom of God is helpful here. The New Testmanet speaks of the Kingdom as already having arrived, and yet not fully arrived. Christ told us that the kingdom of God was amung us, and yet we pray "thy kingdom come".
So without necessarily agreeing with it, does it at least make sense how we could believe that Christ's work is indeed "finished", while still recognizing that there is more work to do in applying Christ's work to the sinful world (i.e us)?
W
Maybe I am just setting myself up by even trying to respond but maybe I can just give a quick one. A penance is not a way of earning forgiveness or paying for our sins, if it was why would we even need the sacrament of confession if we could just do it ourselves? A penance is usually a prayer or something to help us begin to strengthen the grace of God we have received in the sacrament. If sin is turning ourselves away from God, then why should we not try to do some act of returning to the Lord afterwards?
Also, in regards to purgatory, it all has to do with the topic of which I just posted to Huckleberry and Jimbone, it is how Christ's grace is applied to us and thus sanctifies us.
My question again in this regards is, is there a difference between the current world and the New Creation to come? Will the New Jerusalem be perfect? If so, will we still have free will? If we don't I don't see how we could still be considered persons. If we do, surely there has to be something which enables our free will to be sanctified so as to be perfectly charitable.
I don't think anyone can truly say that just by believing in Christ our wills are perfectly healed and we cease to sin. Surely we recognize that this is a process right? But don't we believe that our wills need to be healed still? That we need to be transformed?
So if it all finished with Christ's death, why does He bother telling us to carry our own crosses daily still?
Catholics simply believe in the process I explained in the lasts posts of Christ's grace coming to full fruition through the Spirit working in and through us to sanctify us and the world
Also, in regards to purgatory, it all has to do with the topic of which I just posted to Huckleberry and Jimbone, it is how Christ's grace is applied to us and thus sanctifies us.
My question again in this regards is, is there a difference between the current world and the New Creation to come? Will the New Jerusalem be perfect? If so, will we still have free will? If we don't I don't see how we could still be considered persons. If we do, surely there has to be something which enables our free will to be sanctified so as to be perfectly charitable.
I don't think anyone can truly say that just by believing in Christ our wills are perfectly healed and we cease to sin. Surely we recognize that this is a process right? But don't we believe that our wills need to be healed still? That we need to be transformed?
So if it all finished with Christ's death, why does He bother telling us to carry our own crosses daily still?
Catholics simply believe in the process I explained in the lasts posts of Christ's grace coming to full fruition through the Spirit working in and through us to sanctify us and the world
U
Mailmandan,
Some people cannot let go and re-examine their beliefs.
You have clearly presented the gospel and those who are born again know that we come to God on His terms and He accepts our genuine belief in the work of Christ, and from this singular act of faith/belief in the personal redemptive work of Christ........ by His Grace we are justified (once) and saved (once).
I am so so thankful each day I have been delivered from the horrible dogma of the catholic church.
I appreciate your time and effort to write this up, and we know there is a larger audience out there that my be searching as well and it may plant a seed.
Some people cannot let go and re-examine their beliefs.
You have clearly presented the gospel and those who are born again know that we come to God on His terms and He accepts our genuine belief in the work of Christ, and from this singular act of faith/belief in the personal redemptive work of Christ........ by His Grace we are justified (once) and saved (once).
I am so so thankful each day I have been delivered from the horrible dogma of the catholic church.
I appreciate your time and effort to write this up, and we know there is a larger audience out there that my be searching as well and it may plant a seed.
Please explain to me exactly HOW you became born again while in the CC. What exactly did you BELIEVE or DO that you believe caused you to become born again?
I became born again the very moment that I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in CHRIST ALONE as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation several years ago and this was IN SPITE of what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the plan of salvation and NOT BECAUSE of what they teach.
The CC perverts the gospel of Christ, had added to God's word and lead me astray all the years I attended there. Maybe that explains why I have such dislike for the CC? Why in the world would I defend the CC?
Any church that perverts the gospel needs to be exposed. My church does not pervert the gospel, so it's mainly works salvationists who would persecute it. If you fully understood the truth about Roman Catholicism, then you would not be so soft on the CC.
They need to read Hebrews 9:27.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. As Mike Gendron points out in his article on purgatory - Purgatory is a travesty on the justice of God and a disgraceful fabrication that robs Christ Jesus of His glory and honor. He alone satisfied divine justice, once and for all, by the perfect and finished sacrifice of Himself. The fatal deception of Purgatory blinds Catholics from the glorious Gospel of grace. It is one of Satan's many lies which keep his captives from knowing and trusting the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. - Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable by Mike Gendron - The Urbans in Mexico
Hello! YES I DID. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).
◄ 4100. pisteuó ►
Strong's Concordance
pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in
Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.
I told you what it means, multiple times. Completely? Works are necessary for what? Works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of believing in Him/faith in Christ, but not the essence of believing in Him/faith in Christ and not the means of our salvation. So I ask you again, works are necessary for what?
That would be the FRUIT of BELIEVE and not the essence of BELIEVE. This is where you try to "shoe horn" works "into" BELIEVE, just as the Roman Catholic church tries to "infuse" works into believe/faith and teaches that we are saved by BOTH believe/faith AND works. Believe/faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrate there is no root. Simple!
Works are the demonstrative evidence that we BELIEVE IN JESUS, yet the definition of believe is not works.
He's not my friend, but regardless, he was not correct about the CC not teaching salvation by works. He said that we are saved by faith as long as faith is properly defined, then he went on to say that faith INCLUDES the check list of works that he listed which equates to saying that we are saved by faith (his version of faith) + that list of works that he "infused" into faith. Sugar coated double talk.
It's not about Catholic theologians being dumb, just deceived. Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT WORKS, yet Catholics say we are saved by grace through faith INFUSED WITH WORKS, which is not what Paul said. I don't hate works, I just put them in their proper place--subsequent to regeneration and salvation. Works come in as the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation. Are you figuring this out yet?
I accept that AFTER we have been saved by grace through faith, works then come in (Ephesians 2:8-10). *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.
I have explained that to you as well but apparently what I explain to you continues to go right over your head. BTY it's actually Roman Catholics who muddle the different between Justification and Sanctification by confusing ongoing Sanctification with Justification. Go back and read post #9067 in the Not By Works thread and follow up with post #9079 - http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/146296-not-works-454.html
Works are the RESULT of salvation, not the means of salvation. Huge difference!
After hearing you agree with the Roman Catholic who included works into the definition of BELIEVE, hearing you say works are necessary is a loaded statement! Works are the necessary fruit that demonstrates we truly believe. If someone claims to have faith yet they have no works at all (given time to produce them) then they demonstrate they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not genuine faith, but that is still a far cry from saying we are saved by works.
The proper balance is man is saved through faith and not by works, yet genuine faith is evidenced by works.
Obedience is not forced or legalistic for genuine believers.
Yet how many of us are perfectly obedient, 100% of the time? So where does that leave us? What is the dividing line between heaven and hell? Sinless, perfect obedience/no sinless, perfect obedience? OR believes in Him/does not believe in Him? What did Jesus say in John 3:18?
I became born again the very moment that I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in CHRIST ALONE as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation several years ago and this was IN SPITE of what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the plan of salvation and NOT BECAUSE of what they teach.
The CC perverts the gospel of Christ, had added to God's word and lead me astray all the years I attended there. Maybe that explains why I have such dislike for the CC? Why in the world would I defend the CC?
Any church that perverts the gospel needs to be exposed. My church does not pervert the gospel, so it's mainly works salvationists who would persecute it. If you fully understood the truth about Roman Catholicism, then you would not be so soft on the CC.
They need to read Hebrews 9:27.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. As Mike Gendron points out in his article on purgatory - Purgatory is a travesty on the justice of God and a disgraceful fabrication that robs Christ Jesus of His glory and honor. He alone satisfied divine justice, once and for all, by the perfect and finished sacrifice of Himself. The fatal deception of Purgatory blinds Catholics from the glorious Gospel of grace. It is one of Satan's many lies which keep his captives from knowing and trusting the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. - Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable by Mike Gendron - The Urbans in Mexico
Hello! YES I DID. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).
◄ 4100. pisteuó ►
Strong's Concordance
pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in
Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.
I told you what it means, multiple times. Completely? Works are necessary for what? Works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of believing in Him/faith in Christ, but not the essence of believing in Him/faith in Christ and not the means of our salvation. So I ask you again, works are necessary for what?
That would be the FRUIT of BELIEVE and not the essence of BELIEVE. This is where you try to "shoe horn" works "into" BELIEVE, just as the Roman Catholic church tries to "infuse" works into believe/faith and teaches that we are saved by BOTH believe/faith AND works. Believe/faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrate there is no root. Simple!
Works are the demonstrative evidence that we BELIEVE IN JESUS, yet the definition of believe is not works.
He's not my friend, but regardless, he was not correct about the CC not teaching salvation by works. He said that we are saved by faith as long as faith is properly defined, then he went on to say that faith INCLUDES the check list of works that he listed which equates to saying that we are saved by faith (his version of faith) + that list of works that he "infused" into faith. Sugar coated double talk.
It's not about Catholic theologians being dumb, just deceived. Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT WORKS, yet Catholics say we are saved by grace through faith INFUSED WITH WORKS, which is not what Paul said. I don't hate works, I just put them in their proper place--subsequent to regeneration and salvation. Works come in as the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation. Are you figuring this out yet?
I accept that AFTER we have been saved by grace through faith, works then come in (Ephesians 2:8-10). *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.
I have explained that to you as well but apparently what I explain to you continues to go right over your head.
BTY it's actually Roman Catholics who muddle the different between Justification and Sanctification by confusing ongoing Sanctification with Justification. Go back and read post #9067 in the Not By Works thread and follow up with post #9079 - http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/146296-not-works-454.html Works are the RESULT of salvation, not the means of salvation. Huge difference!
After hearing you agree with the Roman Catholic who included works into the definition of BELIEVE, hearing you say works are necessary is a loaded statement! Works are the necessary fruit that demonstrates we truly believe. If someone claims to have faith yet they have no works at all (given time to produce them) then they demonstrate they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not genuine faith, but that is still a far cry from saying we are saved by works.
The proper balance is man is saved through faith and not by works, yet genuine faith is evidenced by works.
Obedience is not forced or legalistic for genuine believers.
Yet how many of us are perfectly obedient, 100% of the time? So where does that leave us? What is the dividing line between heaven and hell? Sinless, perfect obedience/no sinless, perfect obedience? OR believes in Him/does not believe in Him? What did Jesus say in John 3:18?
the document of the doctrine of The Lord is Bible, who ever teach a doctrine other than or not inline with the Bible let them be damned
that is mean we as a Christian must learn the Bible to know if the teaching of the preacher inline with the real gospel. Not just trust to pope or angel.
the doctrine Jews and Muslim do not need to accept Jesus as it in the lumen gentium is demonic.
Mary told Lucy to give Russiafor her is demonic.
[h=1]Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)[/h]8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
that is mean we as a Christian must learn the Bible to know if the teaching of the preacher inline with the real gospel. Not just trust to pope or angel.
the doctrine Jews and Muslim do not need to accept Jesus as it in the lumen gentium is demonic.
Mary told Lucy to give Russiafor her is demonic.
[h=1]Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)[/h]8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
W
Hah, yep that would be the question right
It would obviously require a whole thread of its own, and unfortunately I am running more and more out of time as my summer finals are approaching, but I could just give my brief thoughts.
The various promises about the Spirit clearly speak of Him as the one who will guide the church after Christ's departure. As Catholics we obviously believe that the Spirit is active in the prayer of ever individuaal truly open and seeking Him. The idea that Catholics simply leave every single thought and decision to the Pope while we all just wait around passively for his every word to obey it as God on earth or God's replacement is just not accurate (I'm not saying you say that by the way, it just seems to be a mentality that is out there). I think we all can admit to the reality of the Spirit's guidance of the individual, and I'm sure we all have had the experience of being enlightened by Him.
But at the same time I think we also have to honesty admit to the reality of many many different interpretations of the Scriptures amung Christians, even faithful ones who are devout and honest in their seeking of God. Clearly we see different opinions demonstrated constantly in these forums.
So the question comes down to whether or not God desired to provide us with any means of being able to know who is right amung the multitude of opinions? If all we believe is that the Spirit will inspire the individual then it seems we have to say that we are stuck in our situation of having to sift through the various positions and simply each on our own discern as best as we can.
But how well has that worked and how well is it working today?
Does it not seem that if Jesus really desired Christians to be one, as He and the Father are One, as He prayed in the garden in John 17, that He might have done something to make this unity possible?
We as Catholics see Christianity in terms of the fulfillment of the people of Israel. We see that throughout the history of salvation God has not just spoken to humanity in general or in private, but has communicated to and worked through a particular body of people (Israel), and that these people had a structure and leaders etc.
Certainly we believe that Christ becomes the definitive mediator, but He also says things to His apostles such as "He who listens to you listens to me" (Luke 10:16). He certainly intentionally gathered a core group of apostles and then comissioned them as the ones to carry out His mission which is intended to spread to the whole world. While obviously this mission includes the Church in all of her members, and all contribute to the church, it still is a church with structure as we see in Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,"
This is given for the sake of the maintenance of unity: "with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:2-4)
So I think clearly unity is intended and so we have to assume Christ would provide us with the means of achieving and maintaining that unity.
this obviuosly is not a full blown explanation, but it shows a bit of how we would see things as Catholics. I would finish by making a clarifying point which I hinted at in another post. I don't think we need to be against the idea of the existence of a head apostle and guide on earth (i.e. The pope). Many say that this is a man speaking and not God etc, and yes obviously that is true. But we all admit that we believe that God can work through man infallibly as He did to the authors of the Scriptures. Catholics are simply saying that just as God chose to guide the Biblical authors infallibly so that they could convey to us the truth we need, so also we believe that God continues this same process through the work of the successors to the Apostles in the Church, and especially through the Apostles united to their head, the pope.
Now someone like Scott Hahn has laid out well all of the Biblical justifications for this (primacy of Peter etc), but I just offer this as the seminal idea of our thought
Sorry for the akward differently sized texts, I don't know how to avoid that when pasting hehe. Ok, peace
It would obviously require a whole thread of its own, and unfortunately I am running more and more out of time as my summer finals are approaching, but I could just give my brief thoughts.
The various promises about the Spirit clearly speak of Him as the one who will guide the church after Christ's departure. As Catholics we obviously believe that the Spirit is active in the prayer of ever individuaal truly open and seeking Him. The idea that Catholics simply leave every single thought and decision to the Pope while we all just wait around passively for his every word to obey it as God on earth or God's replacement is just not accurate (I'm not saying you say that by the way, it just seems to be a mentality that is out there). I think we all can admit to the reality of the Spirit's guidance of the individual, and I'm sure we all have had the experience of being enlightened by Him.
But at the same time I think we also have to honesty admit to the reality of many many different interpretations of the Scriptures amung Christians, even faithful ones who are devout and honest in their seeking of God. Clearly we see different opinions demonstrated constantly in these forums.
So the question comes down to whether or not God desired to provide us with any means of being able to know who is right amung the multitude of opinions? If all we believe is that the Spirit will inspire the individual then it seems we have to say that we are stuck in our situation of having to sift through the various positions and simply each on our own discern as best as we can.
But how well has that worked and how well is it working today?
Does it not seem that if Jesus really desired Christians to be one, as He and the Father are One, as He prayed in the garden in John 17, that He might have done something to make this unity possible?
We as Catholics see Christianity in terms of the fulfillment of the people of Israel. We see that throughout the history of salvation God has not just spoken to humanity in general or in private, but has communicated to and worked through a particular body of people (Israel), and that these people had a structure and leaders etc.
Certainly we believe that Christ becomes the definitive mediator, but He also says things to His apostles such as "He who listens to you listens to me" (Luke 10:16). He certainly intentionally gathered a core group of apostles and then comissioned them as the ones to carry out His mission which is intended to spread to the whole world. While obviously this mission includes the Church in all of her members, and all contribute to the church, it still is a church with structure as we see in Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,"
This is given for the sake of the maintenance of unity: "with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:2-4)
So I think clearly unity is intended and so we have to assume Christ would provide us with the means of achieving and maintaining that unity.
this obviuosly is not a full blown explanation, but it shows a bit of how we would see things as Catholics. I would finish by making a clarifying point which I hinted at in another post. I don't think we need to be against the idea of the existence of a head apostle and guide on earth (i.e. The pope). Many say that this is a man speaking and not God etc, and yes obviously that is true. But we all admit that we believe that God can work through man infallibly as He did to the authors of the Scriptures. Catholics are simply saying that just as God chose to guide the Biblical authors infallibly so that they could convey to us the truth we need, so also we believe that God continues this same process through the work of the successors to the Apostles in the Church, and especially through the Apostles united to their head, the pope.
Now someone like Scott Hahn has laid out well all of the Biblical justifications for this (primacy of Peter etc), but I just offer this as the seminal idea of our thought
Sorry for the akward differently sized texts, I don't know how to avoid that when pasting hehe. Ok, peace
W
Also, it seems that Protestants have accepted this principle of the guidance of the successors of the Apostles infallibly in at least one instance in history, namely, the selection of the books of the Bible. Again, I think one has one of two options here: either we say that God gudied His Church infallibly to select the books of the bible, and thus we have an infallible canon, or we can only say that some Christians got together and through their best judgment picked out the books that they thought were best, and thus we have a fallible list/canon of infallible books.
And I don't think just making a vague general reference to some comment like, "well that was not the Catholic Church it was some other Church" works here. It was the college of bishops united in a council (Hippo and Carthage) with the Pope. If you read any of the Christians at that time, this is the Church you see. It is a Christianity that believes in bishops, and the Eucharist as the real presence etc (you can't read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Augustine, John Chrysostom etc and deny that)
And I don't think just making a vague general reference to some comment like, "well that was not the Catholic Church it was some other Church" works here. It was the college of bishops united in a council (Hippo and Carthage) with the Pope. If you read any of the Christians at that time, this is the Church you see. It is a Christianity that believes in bishops, and the Eucharist as the real presence etc (you can't read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Augustine, John Chrysostom etc and deny that)
Hah, yep that would be the question right
It would obviously require a whole thread of its own, and unfortunately I am running more and more out of time as my summer finals are approaching, but I could just give my brief thoughts.
The various promises about the Spirit clearly speak of Him as the one who will guide the church after Christ's departure. As Catholics we obviously believe that the Spirit is active in the prayer of ever individuaal truly open and seeking Him. The idea that Catholics simply leave every single thought and decision to the Pope while we all just wait around passively for his every word to obey it as God on earth or God's replacement is just not accurate (I'm not saying you say that by the way, it just seems to be a mentality that is out there). I think we all can admit to the reality of the Spirit's guidance of the individual, and I'm sure we all have had the experience of being enlightened by Him.
But at the same time I think we also have to honesty admit to the reality of many many different interpretations of the Scriptures amung Christians, even faithful ones who are devout and honest in their seeking of God. Clearly we see different opinions demonstrated constantly in these forums.
So the question comes down to whether or not God desired to provide us with any means of being able to know who is right amung the multitude of opinions? If all we believe is that the Spirit will inspire the individual then it seems we have to say that we are stuck in our situation of having to sift through the various positions and simply each on our own discern as best as we can.
But how well has that worked and how well is it working today?
Does it not seem that if Jesus really desired Christians to be one, as He and the Father are One, as He prayed in the garden in John 17, that He might have done something to make this unity possible?
We as Catholics see Christianity in terms of the fulfillment of the people of Israel. We see that throughout the history of salvation God has not just spoken to humanity in general or in private, but has communicated to and worked through a particular body of people (Israel), and that these people had a structure and leaders etc.
Certainly we believe that Christ becomes the definitive mediator, but He also says things to His apostles such as "He who listens to you listens to me" (Luke 10:16). He certainly intentionally gathered a core group of apostles and then comissioned them as the ones to carry out His mission which is intended to spread to the whole world. While obviously this mission includes the Church in all of her members, and all contribute to the church, it still is a church with structure as we see in Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,"
This is given for the sake of the maintenance of unity: "with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:2-4)
So I think clearly unity is intended and so we have to assume Christ would provide us with the means of achieving and maintaining that unity.
this obviuosly is not a full blown explanation, but it shows a bit of how we would see things as Catholics. I would finish by making a clarifying point which I hinted at in another post. I don't think we need to be against the idea of the existence of a head apostle and guide on earth (i.e. The pope). Many say that this is a man speaking and not God etc, and yes obviously that is true. But we all admit that we believe that God can work through man infallibly as He did to the authors of the Scriptures. Catholics are simply saying that just as God chose to guide the Biblical authors infallibly so that they could convey to us the truth we need, so also we believe that God continues this same process through the work of the successors to the Apostles in the Church, and especially through the Apostles united to their head, the pope.
Now someone like Scott Hahn has laid out well all of the Biblical justifications for this (primacy of Peter etc), but I just offer this as the seminal idea of our thought
Sorry for the akward differently sized texts, I don't know how to avoid that when pasting hehe. Ok, peace
It would obviously require a whole thread of its own, and unfortunately I am running more and more out of time as my summer finals are approaching, but I could just give my brief thoughts.
The various promises about the Spirit clearly speak of Him as the one who will guide the church after Christ's departure. As Catholics we obviously believe that the Spirit is active in the prayer of ever individuaal truly open and seeking Him. The idea that Catholics simply leave every single thought and decision to the Pope while we all just wait around passively for his every word to obey it as God on earth or God's replacement is just not accurate (I'm not saying you say that by the way, it just seems to be a mentality that is out there). I think we all can admit to the reality of the Spirit's guidance of the individual, and I'm sure we all have had the experience of being enlightened by Him.
But at the same time I think we also have to honesty admit to the reality of many many different interpretations of the Scriptures amung Christians, even faithful ones who are devout and honest in their seeking of God. Clearly we see different opinions demonstrated constantly in these forums.
So the question comes down to whether or not God desired to provide us with any means of being able to know who is right amung the multitude of opinions? If all we believe is that the Spirit will inspire the individual then it seems we have to say that we are stuck in our situation of having to sift through the various positions and simply each on our own discern as best as we can.
But how well has that worked and how well is it working today?
Does it not seem that if Jesus really desired Christians to be one, as He and the Father are One, as He prayed in the garden in John 17, that He might have done something to make this unity possible?
We as Catholics see Christianity in terms of the fulfillment of the people of Israel. We see that throughout the history of salvation God has not just spoken to humanity in general or in private, but has communicated to and worked through a particular body of people (Israel), and that these people had a structure and leaders etc.
Certainly we believe that Christ becomes the definitive mediator, but He also says things to His apostles such as "He who listens to you listens to me" (Luke 10:16). He certainly intentionally gathered a core group of apostles and then comissioned them as the ones to carry out His mission which is intended to spread to the whole world. While obviously this mission includes the Church in all of her members, and all contribute to the church, it still is a church with structure as we see in Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,"
This is given for the sake of the maintenance of unity: "with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:2-4)
So I think clearly unity is intended and so we have to assume Christ would provide us with the means of achieving and maintaining that unity.
this obviuosly is not a full blown explanation, but it shows a bit of how we would see things as Catholics. I would finish by making a clarifying point which I hinted at in another post. I don't think we need to be against the idea of the existence of a head apostle and guide on earth (i.e. The pope). Many say that this is a man speaking and not God etc, and yes obviously that is true. But we all admit that we believe that God can work through man infallibly as He did to the authors of the Scriptures. Catholics are simply saying that just as God chose to guide the Biblical authors infallibly so that they could convey to us the truth we need, so also we believe that God continues this same process through the work of the successors to the Apostles in the Church, and especially through the Apostles united to their head, the pope.
Now someone like Scott Hahn has laid out well all of the Biblical justifications for this (primacy of Peter etc), but I just offer this as the seminal idea of our thought
Sorry for the akward differently sized texts, I don't know how to avoid that when pasting hehe. Ok, peace
how about if I put it this way
if you read the Bible and see something that sounds to you like it conflicts with church teaching
and you set aside church teaching on the matter and go with your own thoughts,
you are essentially a protestant.
if, however, you decide to submit to the church's authority on the matter, you are essentially a Catholic.
imo
I believe canon is choose the book.
it bite different with infabillity of Pope,
christian was use that book prior canonization,
then they confirm.
infability of pope, open the opportunity for pope to create new teaching, example lumen gentium
that teach Jews and Muslim do not need to accept Jesus.
Canonization do not open this hole
it bite different with infabillity of Pope,
christian was use that book prior canonization,
then they confirm.
infability of pope, open the opportunity for pope to create new teaching, example lumen gentium
that teach Jews and Muslim do not need to accept Jesus.
Canonization do not open this hole
The outcome of this thread should reveal why He should not have included His current religion.. Of course He is free to do as He pleased in relation to revealing his religion.. But if He simply focused on finding out about calvinisism and to a wider extent protestansism then it would have been more conducive to getting that information if he did not reveal his religion..
I am not a calvinist.. I am closer to the Armenian POV of Gods foreknowledge and predestination.. But i see it as a disputable matter which i do not consider to be a core salvation doctrine.. As long as a calvinist believes in the central core doctrines of the Gospel about believing Jesus and trusting in the Atonement He secured for their salvation i believe i will be meeting them in Eternity where we shall know all the truth in regards to all the things we discuss and debate down here on earth..
Well yes because you are a catholic.... like being muslim is perfectly normal to a muslim.... to me islam and catholicism are the same. in regards to their works salvation focus.. I see catholicism, SDA, mormonism and islam as non-Christian religions.. I have had discussions with you before fran so i doubt anything would come of a discussion in the future..
I am not a calvinist.. I am closer to the Armenian POV of Gods foreknowledge and predestination.. But i see it as a disputable matter which i do not consider to be a core salvation doctrine.. As long as a calvinist believes in the central core doctrines of the Gospel about believing Jesus and trusting in the Atonement He secured for their salvation i believe i will be meeting them in Eternity where we shall know all the truth in regards to all the things we discuss and debate down here on earth..
Well yes because you are a catholic.... like being muslim is perfectly normal to a muslim.... to me islam and catholicism are the same. in regards to their works salvation focus.. I see catholicism, SDA, mormonism and islam as non-Christian religions.. I have had discussions with you before fran so i doubt anything would come of a discussion in the future..
Without a doubt, and Jesus told us it would be just like this until He returned. You know what was changed and is SUPER redeemed? Ever believers heart, mind and soul. Have you read Revelation? We weren't promised the new world and Jerusalem just yet, but you can bank on the fact it is coming. When? No man knows, but by your own descriptions I would say we are closer every day.
As far as His work being done every day, we can agree that is the work that we as the church should be doing, and not only as the church, but He empowers each one of us through His Spirit to do these things. That's why I can't brag to you about how much I'm doing "for God". Honestly without His forgiveness and His Spirit indwelling me (being reborn, made new, indwelt, the things we talked about in the PM's) I would care about doing and do none of them. That's why and how He alone gets all glory for ANYTHING "good" I may do.
Honestly I think we can agree on a great many things here, but the things we don't agree on would be the most important parts, the whole how and why we do these things. I again want to thank you for the well thought out and honest comment. I love it when I have to think and write these things out, it helps me a great deal too. Have a great week man, I'm sure I'll see you around.
As far as His work being done every day, we can agree that is the work that we as the church should be doing, and not only as the church, but He empowers each one of us through His Spirit to do these things. That's why I can't brag to you about how much I'm doing "for God". Honestly without His forgiveness and His Spirit indwelling me (being reborn, made new, indwelt, the things we talked about in the PM's) I would care about doing and do none of them. That's why and how He alone gets all glory for ANYTHING "good" I may do.
Honestly I think we can agree on a great many things here, but the things we don't agree on would be the most important parts, the whole how and why we do these things. I again want to thank you for the well thought out and honest comment. I love it when I have to think and write these things out, it helps me a great deal too. Have a great week man, I'm sure I'll see you around.
Last edited:
The church that existed at that time might hunt you down and burn you at the stake if you dared to disagree with them. They used many means to try to silence their detractors, and those who held to the truth were threatened with eternal torment, among other things worse than death. The church at that time decided to ADD to the canon works that had not before been accepted as inspired.