Of course not. False bravado and presumption are most certainly typical of a Christian character, at least what I am finding out by talking to you... Humility is not found anywhere in such attitude.
I'm sorry you didn't get one. My confirmation number is much too long to print in its entirety, but here are the first several digits: 31610910131028151328
I.e., John 3:16, Rom. 10:9-10, 13, John 10:28, 1 John 5:13, Eph. 2:8, etc., etc.
Faith, in this case, is from God's point of view. You either have it or you don't. This "false faith" is for men. Men don't judge men for eternal salvation - which is what we are speaking of. Thus, there is no false faith in God's eyes. Either it is there (perhaps in insufficient qunatity, such as a workless faith), or it is not there at all. Phony faith is not faith.(emphasis added)
You are skirting the issue. There absolutely is false faith in God's eyes. He tells us about it in the "Lord, Lord" verse. You assume that everyone who CLAIMS to have faith, in fact, DOES actually have it. This is false. My point (including what you called my ramble) was that you must hold to this notion because otherwise, the idea of a lost true faith goes out the window. That is why I said that with Catholicism it is all talk on declaring faith.
On the one hand you say that no one can judge another's faith. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, when you DECLARE that anyone who claims faith has it. You totally contradict yourself.
So exactly how does a person claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but refuses to follow those He left behind?
I have no problem following what the Apostles taught, they wrote down their most important teachings. After them, error crept in. But again you do not address what I am saying. Since for you only a claim of faith is needed to be actual faith, why can't anyone just keep reclaiming faith instead of going to confession, etc. You judge all claimers to be bona fide.
Ever heard of "He who rejects you rejects Me"? "If you love Me, you will obey my commandments"? Does Christ rule your life, or do you pick and choose which laws of Christ to follow?
Sure, I have heard of all of those, but I thought they were referring to Christ, not your men. Is your view that in these verses the Catholic hierarchy and Christ are equal in standing?
And I am sure that Paul was really happy with the Bereans that they figured out how to celebrate the Eucharist from the OT Scriptures ALONE...Or baptize people from the OT Scriptures ALONE... Or to forget about Circumcision from the OT Scriptures ALONE...
That is why I very carefully chose the phrase "consistent with scripture". Now, I don't for a second think that Paul taught about the Eucharist as it is practiced today, or that he taught infant Baptism with today's Catholic theological implications. Those are not consistent with scripture, so Paul could not have taught them. My wording was meant to leave room for extra-scriptural things which are consistent with scripture.
I.e., John 3:16, Rom. 10:9-10, 13, John 10:28, 1 John 5:13, Eph. 2:8
Sorry, your confirmation number doesn't match any of those verses... The above verses presume that a Christian would persevere until the end, but it is not guaranteed.
You assume that everyone who CLAIMS to have faith, in fact, DOES actually have it. This is false. My point (including what you called my ramble) was that you must hold to this notion because otherwise, the idea of a lost true faith goes out the window. That is why I said that with Catholicism it is all talk on declaring faith.
Catholicism is about declaring faith? Where did you get that idea from? If anyone is about "declaring" anything, it would be you and your "confirmation number". I have noted over and over we must persevere. Declaring something is one thing, but actually obeying the Will of God is another.
On the one hand you say that no one can judge another's faith. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, when you DECLARE that anyone who claims faith has it. You totally contradict yourself.
You've lost me. I can't judge your faith but yet I supposedly believe you have faith because you merely declare it so? Who are you and where is Forest Keeper? Have I once said that a person has faith because they declare it so? Have I not argued against this very proposition with you? I am not sure where this is from. "False faith" is not faith, even if one claims it is.
I have no problem following what the Apostles taught, they wrote down their most important teachings. After them, error crept in.
How do you know that? Where have you established that? I have not seen any proof from you yet that "error has crept into the Church". I think you just like to think that so that you can justify your continued manner of worship and so forth.
Since for you only a claim of faith is needed to be actual faith, why can't anyone just keep reclaiming faith instead of going to confession, etc. You judge all claimers to be bona fide.
What the heck are you talking about? I have no clue where you think that merely claiming that one has faith means it is so. Just like claiming one is of the elect doesn't make it so.
Sure, I have heard of all of those, but I thought they were referring to Christ, not your men.
"He who rejects you rejects Me"?
So who is "you"? It is the Apostles and their successors.
That is why I very carefully chose the phrase "consistent with scripture". Now, I don't for a second think that Paul taught about the Eucharist as it is practiced today, or that he taught infant Baptism with today's Catholic theological implications. Those are not consistent with scripture, so Paul could not have taught them. My wording was meant to leave room for extra-scriptural things which are consistent with scripture.
According to you they are not. I think they are, have showed how they are, and I think the people immediately following the Apostles were in a better position to know the "minds" of the Apostles, as opposed to "reformers" of the Church interested in usurping power for themselves. You have already shown how much you "know" about what the Bible says regarding Baptism and its necessity for salvation. I see you prefer your own interpretations, even when proven to be faulty, over those of 2000 years of Christian history.
If anything, Protestantism is not even consistent with itself. Case in point - Sola Fide vs. Sola Scriptura... The Bible ITSELF SPECIFICALLY says that we are NOT saved by faith ALONE.
If you are going to invent rules, at least you should be consistent and stick to them, don't you think?
Regards