If you quote Scripture (such as 2 Tim. 2:15) then you're supporting your opinion, but if wagglebee or another Catholic quotes Scripture (including a large block of St. Matthew's Gospel) in a manner that you disagree with it's a "pre-programmed RCC talking point"?
How is that intellectually honest?
I have no problem saying that all Christians should be students of the Word, but when we're drawing contradictory conclusions, that means somebody's interpretation is wrong. I'll stick to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” is Christ, not the RCC nor the SBC. Men in both organizations lead people astray.
Any who conclude that works aid in the saving of a soul deny the sufficiency of Christ. He alone is capable of saving anyone from hell and nobody else is capable of helping Him. “Ye must be born again.” How much can the one being born play in the birthing? Every baby delivered from his mother is totally dependent on her (and those who aid in the delivery) for being born. He can’t make it happen nor stop from happening. “Ye must be born again.” No talk about earning new birth. Good works AFTER being born again bring glory to God, earn rewards in Heaven, etc. But one in the spiritual birth canal can do no good works.
If Christ isn’t sufficient for new birth salvation (the word salvation also includes the on-going salvation - keeping from sin - of the Holy Spirit, and the final salvation - being kept from the wrath of God on judgment day), then new birth will not take place.
Christ is sufficient! He needs no human, though He does condescend to use us to proclaim His gospel.
http://menofhonorministry.org/Discipleship/ChristSufficient.htm