Nice seeing how, under pressure, you turn to accusations and claims of anti-Catholic bigotry, even when you don’t dispute the details of the statements given.
Don't wish to give us your former screen name?
“Only if you persist in that belief. At the hour of your death, that is what God will take and Judge you with.”
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
I’ll be confident that what God has begun in me, He will finish. The faith that I have, as has been related over and over again, is not my own work, but God who revealed Himself to me, as He does all believers.
Confidence, hope, perseverance. Not surety. Run the race until the end. Remember the parable of the fig tree. If it produces no fruit, it will be cut down.
What need I to fear, I who loves God, by the grace of God, and loves man, by the working of God? Faith and works, inevitably, must bow to grace. These works are a reality, but they are only the fruit of what God has begun. Salvation, therefore, is by grace alone, by faith alone, without the working of the law.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say 'faith alone'. That was an invention of Martin Luther.
Who cares about world views? I don’t care about the Catholic view, or of your confused views of grace. I don’t care that they merely exist. I care about Christ’s view. Make an argument, don’t just tell me you have an opinion. Use the scripture, be serious, show me how A leads to B. Defend yourself, don’t just attack me.
I don't need to defend myself. I am serious and use Scripture in context. I don't just trot out unconnected snippets and point to them as proofs without any connection to the arguments that I am making.<
You may wish to switch to Christianity at some point.”
Says the guy who has not yet made one argument using the scripture.
Interesting. The words of Jesus and Paul are not Scripture. May I enquire what your scripture consists of?
“Yes. Unlike some of our antagonists, I think that we understand that there are requirements given to Christians and that they are required to follow them.”
These “requirements,” of course, in you view, aren’t REALLY the following:
Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Mar 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Gal_5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Because the actual charge is, “you do not do what is required... which is being in the Roman Catholic Church and obeying it.” If you were truly a great moralizer, calling people to the requirements of religion, there would be no conlict here with he Romans being so outraged. You would instead ask us to have faith in God, and “love your neighbour as yourself,” for in these things one fulfills the royal law, according to Christ and all of the Apostles. No mention here of bowing and scraping for the scraps offered by the Roman pontiff. And, certainly not any indication that one’s imperfections or perfections have in any effect on salvation.
Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Works are certainly the fruit of the spirit, but they cannot save a man, as has been shown over and over again.
You might say, “Well, you have to attend Papist Mass to be saved!” Oh, have to? Can’t I eat and drink Christ through faith, as Augustine argued? Isn’t that how the Thief was saved, by faith alone on the cross? He knew nothing of any of the rites of the Papists, yet was saved by the perfect power of God. And what does the scripture actually say about the Lord’s supper?
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Do this in remembrance of me, not “resacrifice me and eat this bread so that you may be saved.” In fact, do you have any evidence that the Lord’s supper, from the scipture, isn’t always an actual supper of believers? Such is the way I’ve practiced it.
You say I only bring snippets out of context, but never so much as provide any data that actually shows why those quotes, and lots of them, are false. Thou Pharisee, are you not just too lazy to explain what those scriptures mean and how you reconcile them with you Romanist views, because the fact of the matter is you are more concerned with what is handed down to you from Rome than what is handed us by the Apostles?
Better yet, isn’t it your duty to explain why I ought to even believe in the Romans who, evidently, do all your thinking for you? Can you show me the infallible magisterium of the church, the unstoppable and always existent primacy of Rome, in the words of your “Pope” Gregoy, who declares that that the throne of Peter is held by three separate Bishops?
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
I’ve asked you to address this multiple times, but you have not.
Why should I believe in Roman pretensions and arguments when 1) They provide no arguments, just assertions 2) They have no continuous tradition on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, only a developing tradition that took centuries to even develop to something close to what Romanists hold today. And not only on this matter, but on many matters which are utterly absent from the historical record.
So, tell me again, why I should accept your false premise, and tolerate your put-downs and your assertions, which ignore everything given to you and does not even attempt to explain the scriptures?
“Confidence, hope, perseverance. Not surety.”
Hell hound, address the scripture. Don’t just ignore it. What God has started, does he finish it, yes or no? By grace are ye saved, not of works, yes or no? Just because you will not read, and cannot make logical deductions unless approved by Rome, doesn’t mean you can get away with that in an actual debate.
“Interesting. The words of Jesus and Paul are not Scripture”
They are the scripture. Not once have you addressed any of the words of Paul or Jesus, which I have provided. Do you really seriously think that by saying something like “Look at the feg tree! I’m CATHLUCK, tarefore, it disproofs u!@#$” is an argument? How about you show us how the fig tree isn’t a metaphore for Israel, how the gentiles are not grafted in, and how people aren’t really saved by grace through faith, or how any of the scriptures I have provided don’t mean what they directly say, based on the context you affirm clearly disproves it?
Get to work, Sir Lazy.