Is anyone planning on...............

[Rella]

But I know what the meaning of is, is....................................

 

[Eleanor]

You will not even help yourself till you study what YOU mean by faith, and saved for that matter,

Are you paying attention? That was presented by me in post #34.

What is so hard for you to understand about faith and salvation?

 

[donadams]

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, Phil 1:29.

Is suffering some sort of work for you, something that is added for salvation? Or are you just throwing verses out not thinking?

It is obvious, to suffer for Christ is a gift of God. Matter of fact, they (sufferings) are appointed by God. Suffering for the sake of Christ is a high honor. And God gives His children the grace to endure suffering.


I understand your leaders don't want you to interpret scripture yourself, for various reasons.

But try to actually read scripture in context. It even will help to ask questions.

You still owe me an answer. About your works salvation. There is the question again, in bold below..
Thanks


{Also, would you explain how work is involved, in which way? I would like to see how well you know your own religion.}

There can be no interpretation of scripture!
If scripture is the only authority, then there cannot be any other authority to give an authentic interpretation especially not an ignorant lay person like me.


Scriptural context:

All scripture is the inspired word of God but it never says anything about context being inspired or required.

Ex 20 in context only gives you 9 Commandments.

Scriptural context:

All scripture is the inspired word of God but it never says anything about context being inspired or required.

Ex 20 in context only gives you 9 Commandments.

Every word of scripture is the inspired word of God, even one word, every word of Jesus is eternal.

Still it cannot be faith alone if it is faith and suffering!

Next;

1 cor 13:2 all faith without charity avails nothing.

Go for it

 

[donadams]

Short version? Is that what you call that?
Okay.


Well,

Also, would you explain how work is involved, in which way? I would like to see how well you know your own religion.


Still waiting.

You sad a verse opposing “faith alone”! Mk 16:16 faith and baptism

 

[Arial]

There can be no interpretation of scripture!
If scripture is the only authority, then there cannot be any other authority to give an authentic interpretation especially not an ignirant lay person like me.

What is the Catholic church but a setting itself up as the only interpretation of scripture? And where do they get that authority and that interpretation from?

Sola scriptura is taking it out of the hands of a self proclaimed authority and putting the authority back where it belongs, with individual freedom to do their own work. Sure it arrives at many and various different interpretations but that does not make every interpretation right. Scripture itself as the word of God provides one true interpretation and that is what God means. Some things are of lesser importance than others in that they are things that do not pertain to or affect one's salvation. But those things that do affect salvation---who Jesus is, what He did, how and why, though subject to people's whims and misunderstandings, have one true meaning. And you completely discount the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing these things to people, The RCC takes up that position for itself.

I know that because of the particular type of indoctrination you have received, that it is unlikely that you can comprehend the idea of what scripture interpreting itself means. The whole counsel of God must be used and that counsel is found one place and one place only. The scriptures, the ones the Protestant church has. (Lower thine hackels, I will get to that in a moment,) And in particular, those places in both OT and NT where Messiah (Christ) is promised, His arrival and method of arrival, and all the places the NT quotes the old as verification of who Jesus is, and His purpose in coming. They are very clear and they teach the sufficiency of Christ to atone for sin. That means nothing is added as necessary for salvation. No other mediator between God and man, no other sacrifice, no works, no other authority than Christ HImself. The union through faith with the mediator and Savior naturally produces the fruit of righteousness---works of obedience and charity, as surely as a branch in the Vine produces fruit, or a seed planted in good soil produces a crop.

When something is not clear, it can be clarified by other passages of scripture on the same subject that are clear. So sola scriptura means those things, and it means that no man or organization has a higher authority that the scriptures themselves. A man or an organization cannot dictate through their own interpretation and self interests, to His church what scripture means, and call that and themselves, the voice of God. The Reformation with its solas and its teachings were an attempt to as much as humanly possible, exegete using the whole counsel of God what scripture is saying as an aid to the people and to establish some sort of consistent teaching of the scriptures and their meaning through confessions and catechisms. But they did not dictate or control.

On the Protestant canon and why it is reliable whereas the added books in the RCC bible are not. There are books in the RCC canon that contradict other things in the books in the Protestant Bible, making truth inconsistent. As well the authors and origins of those extra books cannot be verified as being viable. They may be and are interesting, but they are inconsistent with the integrity of the other books of the P'ant canon.

 

[Illuminator]

What is the Catholic church but a setting itself up as the only interpretation of scripture? And where do they get that authority and that interpretation from?

Sola scriptura is taking it out of the hands of a self proclaimed authority and putting the authority back where it belongs, with individual freedom to do their own work. Sure it arrives at many and various different interpretations but that does not make every interpretation right. Scripture itself as the word of God provides one true interpretation and that is what God means. Some things are of lesser importance than others in that they are things that do not pertain to or affect one's salvation. But those things that do affect salvation---who Jesus is, what He did, how and why, though subject to people's whims and misunderstandings, have one true meaning. And you completely discount the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing these things to people, The RCC takes up that position for itself.

I know that because of the particular type of indoctrination you have received, that it is unlikely that you can comprehend the idea of what scripture interpreting itself means. The whole counsel of God must be used and that counsel is found one place and one place only. The scriptures, the ones the Protestant church has. (Lower thine hackels, I will get to that in a moment,) And in particular, those places in both OT and NT where Messiah (Christ) is promised, His arrival and method of arrival, and all the places the NT quotes the old as verification of who Jesus is, and His purpose in coming. They are very clear and they teach the sufficiency of Christ to atone for sin. That means nothing is added as necessary for salvation. No other mediator between God and man, no other sacrifice, no works, no other authority than Christ HImself. The union through faith with the mediator and Savior naturally produces the fruit of righteousness---works of obedience and charity, as surely as a branch in the Vine produces fruit, or a seed planted in good soil produces a crop.

When something is not clear, it can be clarified by other passages of scripture on the same subject that are clear. So sola scriptura means those things, and it means that no man or organization has a higher authority that the scriptures themselves. A man or an organization cannot dictate through their own interpretation and self interests, to His church what scripture means, and call that and themselves, the voice of God. The Reformation with its solas and its teachings were an attempt to as much as humanly possible, exegete using the whole counsel of God what scripture is saying as an aid to the people and to establish some sort of consistent teaching of the scriptures and their meaning through confessions and catechisms. But they did not dictate or control.

On the Protestant canon and why it is reliable whereas the added books in the RCC bible are not. There are books in the RCC canon that contradict other things in the books in the Protestant Bible, making truth inconsistent. As well the authors and origins of those extra books cannot be verified as being viable. They may be and are interesting, but they are inconsistent with the integrity of the other books of the P'ant canon.

 

[Mikeuk]

Are you paying attention? That was presented by me in post #34.

What is so hard for you to understand about faith and salvation?

Thanks for the reply , I missed it

Lets pass over some detail, to avoid complication.

But you did include the word “obey.”
Which incidentally is the root of the word in Joh. 3:36 - where the opposite of believe is disobey.

Jesus asks to do many things, which clearly touches on works - not out of merit but out of obedience.
Obedience matters to salvation and it Is not a one off event , it is a lifelong mission.

Many things are demanded.
So nobody can say whether you obeyed on the basis of an instant In life .
Nobody can say whether you are saved on the Basis of one instant.
At the heart of obedience is love. At the heart of belief is trust.

Salvation has many meanings in scripture,
temporal , eternal and general . Also a first stage - entry to the process is justification.
There are past present and future references to salvation.

The point I make is many protestants seem to think a one time declaration of “ belief” as John 3:16 is enough Where belief is declaring Jesus is Lord. It isn’t.
If it was the Bible would be one page long not hundreds!
Salvation is not a simple one liner.

I point out that on the basis of an agreed definition of faith, the Holy See agreed with part of Lutheranism an accord on salvation, but then pointing out that because of the definition of formed faith, the phrase “ sola scriptura” was a thoroughly misleading phrase To describe what they meant!
Much as some components of TULIP have a useful basis , but the words used like “ total depravity” are a thoroughly misleading way to describe the concept it tries to refer.

In the end none of us are good enough, we can only hope for grace through faith.

 

[Illuminator]

What is the Catholic church but a setting itself up as the only interpretation of scripture? And where do they get that authority and that interpretation from?

Sola scriptura is taking it out of the hands of a self proclaimed authority and putting the authority back where it belongs, with individual freedom to do their own work. Sure it arrives at many and various different interpretations but that does not make every interpretation right. Scripture itself as the word of God provides one true interpretation and that is what God means. Some things are of lesser importance than others in that they are things that do not pertain to or affect one's salvation. But those things that do affect salvation---who Jesus is, what He did, how and why, though subject to people's whims and misunderstandings, have one true meaning. And you completely discount the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing these things to people, The RCC takes up that position for itself.

I know that because of the particular type of indoctrination you have received, that it is unlikely that you can comprehend the idea of what scripture interpreting itself means. The whole counsel of God must be used and that counsel is found one place and one place only. The scriptures, the ones the Protestant church has. (Lower thine hackels, I will get to that in a moment,) And in particular, those places in both OT and NT where Messiah (Christ) is promised, His arrival and method of arrival, and all the places the NT quotes the old as verification of who Jesus is, and His purpose in coming. They are very clear and they teach the sufficiency of Christ to atone for sin. That means nothing is added as necessary for salvation. No other mediator between God and man, no other sacrifice, no works, no other authority than Christ HImself. The union through faith with the mediator and Savior naturally produces the fruit of righteousness---works of obedience and charity, as surely as a branch in the Vine produces fruit, or a seed planted in good soil produces a crop.

When something is not clear, it can be clarified by other passages of scripture on the same subject that are clear. So sola scriptura means those things, and it means that no man or organization has a higher authority that the scriptures themselves. A man or an organization cannot dictate through their own interpretation and self interests, to His church what scripture means, and call that and themselves, the voice of God. The Reformation with its solas and its teachings were an attempt to as much as humanly possible, exegete using the whole counsel of God what scripture is saying as an aid to the people and to establish some sort of consistent teaching of the scriptures and their meaning through confessions and catechisms. But they did not dictate or control.

On the Protestant canon and why it is reliable whereas the added books in the RCC bible are not. There are books in the RCC canon that contradict other things in the books in the Protestant Bible, making truth inconsistent. As well the authors and origins of those extra books cannot be verified as being viable. They may be and are interesting, but they are inconsistent with the integrity of the other books of the P'ant canon.

Here lies the heart of the controversy. Saying the Holy Spirit gives us “inner assurance” is just words. Indeed, the Spirit can and does do that, but the problem is that people don’t always accuracy discern His voice. Hence, we have the absurdity of Christians all appealing to the Bible and the Holy Spirit, yet disagreeing on doctrine, precisely because there is no system of binding authority.

The Protestant cries “Scripture, Scripture” but it necessarily needs an authoritative interpreter, lest the disagreements and sectarianism start in right away: precisely as actually happened in history: Luther came around, then Zwingli and Anabaptists and Calvinists and Carlstadt and the Anglicans disagreed with him. And so forth and so on, up to multiple hundreds if not thousands of competing Protestant opinions. That is hardly helpful for the individual seeking the one biblical, divine truth, to actually find it.

Where contradiction is present, error must necessarily be present, and lies and falsehood are of the devil, as Jesus taught. Denominationalism and rejection of Catholic authority always brings this about, and has no solution to it. Theological relativism is not biblical. Scripture alone is obviously not enough to actually bring about unity. It simply hasn’t happened; whereas Catholic authority has produced one identifiable, unified doctrine.

Self-Interpreting Bible & Protestant Chaos (vs. Turretin) Self-Interpreting Bible & Protestant Chaos (vs. Turretin)

Including Documentation that St. Basil the Great -- Contrary to Turretin's Claim -- Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura François Turretin (1623-1687) was a 17th century Calvinist theologian François Turretin asserted a "self-interpreting Bible." Great idea, but in practice it produces theological...

www.patheos.com

 

[Arial]

Here lies the heart of the controversy. Saying the Holy Spirit gives us “inner assurance” is just words. Indeed, the Spirit can and does do that, but the problem is that people don’t always accuracy discern His voice. Hence, we have the absurdity of Christians all appealing to the Bible and the Holy Spirit, yet disagreeing on doctrine, precisely because there is no system of binding authority.

I did not say inner assurance. Assurance has nothing to do with it. That is the mistake people make that causes much of the different interpretations. That is counting on feelings.

And the Holy Spirit does not speak to us except through His word. So interpretation of any scripture or set of scriptures must be in harmony with all the others as to truth. I know---too much work. It is better to just have someone tell us what it means and go with that if we like it. (Sarcasm.) And therein lies the problem and all the differences. The problem is not sola scriptura. It is people. They don't do the work of making sure what they think something means is in agreement with or contradictory to other parts of the scripture.

There is one binding authority for Christ's church and for truth. The Bible itself. Can you not understand what that means? Any binding authority taken by men or institutions when it comes to Christianity and the interpretation of scripture becomes the doctrines and traditions of men. Have you ever even read the Bible? The whole thing? Again and again? Studied it? Compared it to itself instead of Catholic teaching? How are you to know if what they say is true or right? Blind faith is not faith. At best, weak and unstable. Or the faith is not in God but rather the institution.

The Protestant cries “Scripture, Scripture” but it necessarily needs an authoritative interpreter, lest the disagreements and sectarianism start in right away: precisely as actually happened in history:

Could you get on another band wagon maybe? Scripture does not need an authoritative interpreter. There were disagreements and sectarianism even within the NT church, and there certainly has been and is within the Catholic church. You speak of something that always has been and always will be as though it were caused by the Reformation and sola scriptura. That absurdly false. What you propose is totalitarianism of regulated religion over the masses. Who gave the Catholic church the power to be the authoritative interpreter of scripture? And don't say God unless you can prove it from the Bible.

Where contradiction is present, error must necessarily be present, and lies and falsehood are of the devil, as Jesus taught. Denominationalism and rejection of Catholic authority always brings this about, and has no solution to it. Theological relativism is not biblical. Scripture alone is obviously not enough to actually bring about unity. It simply hasn’t happened; whereas Catholic authority has produced one identifiable, unified doctrine.

I realize you actually believe that is true, and yet you completely ignore the massive amount of error put forth by the RCC that blatantly contradicts the Bible. You claim it doesn't by your own witness----as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible. I would be will to bet that a large percentage of those who say they are Catholic do not practice the teachings of that denomination. Others have no clue what the religion teaches, and what they do know they simply believe with nary a splinter of curiosity or question as to it truthfulness. They like the pomp and circumstance, the mystery, the incense and grand architecture, or their family has always been Catholic. Or it is just the thing to be.

So don't tell me that this authoritative interpretation of scripture above and beyond the scriptures has produced a unity. You indict your own religion when you make the statement "where contradiction is present, error must necessarily be present, and lies and falsehood are of the devil." It is scripture that must not be contradicted. That is the voice of God. Not the RCC. Just because you can't read and understand the scriptures independently of the RCC dogma does not mean no one can. And I am sure you could, but you don't, and see no need to. Just trust the Catholic church.

 

[Eleanor]

Thanks for the reply , I missed it

Lets pass over some detail, to avoid complication.

But you did include the word “obey.”

Read it again. . .and note the distinction.

It's not complicated.

 

[Arial]

Where contradiction is present, error must necessarily be present, and lies and falsehood are of the devil, as Jesus taught. Denominationalism and rejection of Catholic authority always brings this about, and has no solution to it. Theological relativism is not biblical. Scripture alone is obviously not enough to actually bring about unity. It simply hasn’t happened; whereas Catholic authority has produced one identifiable, unified doctrine.

The Catholic church has itself up as the binding and only authoritative interpretation of scripture with only itself as it own witness. That could be given as a definition of a cult. Religious cults do the same thing and hold their congregant with fear, either/and shunning of they are going to hell for violations. But they certainly do produce one identifiable, unified doctrine. Often culmination in mass suicide in which they take the children with them. Just something to think about when presenting the arguments that you present to defend the authority of the RCC.

 

[Carbon]

Absolutely. Which is why it is difficult to imagine how someone can profess faith in Jesus without doing works.

Your right, if their faith is genuine they will do good works.

 

[Carbon]

We believe we can cooperate with God’s grace in order to “merit.” Yet that very merit is itself completely an act of God’s grace...

@donadams @Mikeuk

Here, guys, Illuminator answered the question I have been asking you both. . Do you see the answer? It's quite accurate also.

That wasn't so difficult, was it?

 

[Carbon]

View attachment 575
See the above post for a detailed explanation.

This is your proof? Lol.

Hope you can do better than that.

 

[Carbon]

What Catholics Believe About Faith and Works

“Protestants believe in faith alone. Catholics believe in faith and works.” You hear Protestants and Catholics say this all the time. But is it accurate?

www.catholic.com

“Protestants believe in faith alone, while Catholics believe in faith and works.” You hear both Protestants and Catholics say this all the time.
But it’s a misleading oversimplification. If you tell a typical Evangelical, “You believe in faith alone, but we Catholics believe in faith and works,” you will cause him to think that the Catholic Church teaches something that, in fact, it says is false.

Here’s why . . .

Clink on the above link to learn why...

I don't need to click on the link above for the answer. I was a RC and I have also read books by Catholic apologists along with a pretty deep study.

Here is @Illuminator answer. We believe we can cooperate with God’s grace in order to “merit.” Yet that very merit is itself completely an act of God’s grace...

I agree this defines what RC's believe, and I still disagree.

 

[Carbon]

I’m still waiting.
Can none of you to define “ faith” since you hold “ faith alone “ to be true?
How odd.
The definition matters to understanding scripture.
We cannot have a discussion on “ faith alone” if none of you know what faith Means

Yes, I can define biblical faith for you. As soon as I catch up in this thread.

As for myths.
Catholics do not believe in salvation by works. And you know it.

I already told you what I know about this. And I said, faith + works. Not just works.

Endless popes spoke out on the necessity to read scripture.
You preach a false caricature of catholicism. I had you down as cleverer than that.

You misunderstand me. Or maybe I understand your religion better than you?

But back to my question, you left unanswered
: do you have a Eucharist as taught By John to his disciples? and the succession needed to perform it?
Or have you invented your own?

I have no idea what you are asking here. For some reason, we are not connecting on this question.

 

[Carbon]

There can be no interpretation of scripture!
If scripture is the only authority, then there cannot be any other authority to give an authentic interpretation especially not an ignorant lay person like me.


Scriptural context:

All scripture is the inspired word of God but it never says anything about context being inspired or required.

Ex 20 in context only gives you 9 Commandments.

Scriptural context:

All scripture is the inspired word of God but it never says anything about context being inspired or required.

Ex 20 in context only gives you 9 Commandments.

Every word of scripture is the inspired word of God, even one word, every word of Jesus is eternal.

Still it cannot be faith alone if it is faith and suffering!

Next;

1 cor 13:2 all faith without charity avails nothing.

Go for it

Your lack of understanding of God's word is fascinating.

 

[Carbon]

You sad a verse opposing “faith alone”! Mk 16:16 faith and baptism

Don, one thing at a time.

 

[Illuminator]

The Catholic church has itself up as the binding and only authoritative interpretation of scripture with only itself as it own witness.

So what. Every Protestant denomination does the same thing, but we don't accuse them as "cults".

 

[Red Baker]

We believe we can cooperate with God’s grace in order to “merit.” Yet that very merit is itself completely an act of God’s grace...

Now, straight from the horse's' mouth! That sound also just like the average Calvinist talking ( though I know you are no Calvinist, just using your words to make a point ) when they say that faith is the gift of God yet our faith is the means of justification!

When the truth from the word of God is that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, not our~ not even the gift to believe because even that faith is so imperfect almost daily!