Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[presently no screen name]

You read that I was speaking of salvation - YET you deliberately ignored it. Deception is not blessed but condemned as it’s from the pit of hell.

Now - James IS NOT talking about salvation. Not knowing that shows your total lack of understanding God’s Word.

That being said .... here it is again.

God’s Word says For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.

RCC say ‘ works is needed for salvation ‘. So don’t say God’s Word is the final authority for the RCC. WE ALL KNOW BETTER and I just gave you ONE Scripture where the RCC, the ‘infallible’ pope is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through man.

AMEN. Beautifully put.

As Paul teaches, "anything not of faith is sin." And faith is a free gift of God's grace to His own.

[presently no screen name]

All good, consequently,is derived from God alone, and in no way through man.

AMEN!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I should.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well, you could say that if you wish but I had in mind the heresay of a known liar.

Well, at least you are not stating that BOTH could not be true... :)

Truthfully, there are Unitarian Congregations I wouldn't want to associate with. Let's face it, most Unitarians are not strictly Christian but are made up of "spiritual" though disaffected Protestants, Catholics, Jews, non-churched, and the occasional Witch.

These varied groups find like minded "souls" and form distinctive congregations.

"My" group is mostly composed of (ex?) Protestants, Catholics, and Jews wih a strong Scriptural leaning.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN!

THX THX.

[Quix]

lol. Your “eye witness” is contradicted by Wayne’s own daughter, by other “eye witnesses” and his many friends and relatives.
Add that to the fact everyone agrees Wayne was nearly comatose at the end when he supposedly received last rites, and you have...

A Presbyterian.

---

Works for me.

Those who chronically distort Scripture and reality are not very convincing on such matters.

[Quix]

That is EXACTLY what they are saying. lol.

Maybe it’s habitual. They don’t look for answers in the Bible, and therefore they don’t look much beyond the cover of any book.

---

TOO TRUE. LOL.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

God’s Word says For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.

RCC say ‘ works is needed for salvation ‘. So don’t say God’s Word is the final authority for the RCC. WE ALL KNOW BETTER and I just gave you ONE Scripture where the RCC, the ‘infallible’ pope is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

---

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Alamo-Girl]

What a glorious dream he describes - truly, I doubt Dostoyevsky could have done this without having envisioned it himself.

Thank you so very much for sharing this, dearest sister in Christ!

[OLD REGGIE]

And yet the verse does not say "go and baptise in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and ..." but rather "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit" -- the only explicit time the Trinity is mentioned, and yet where the "name" is evidently one.

Explicit? Explicit? This reminds me of a short film (30 seconds) of an interview with Jim Mora when he was asked about the Colts reaching the playoffs.

Substitute the word "explicit" for "playoffs" and you might get an idea of the tone of my question Explicit?

Playoffs-Explicit??

[bkaycee]

Hmmmm, Jesus rather seems to put His mother and siblings in their place more times than not.

Since Jesus had no blood sibling, I will pay attention to Mary's role and the context of Scripture.

The sons and daughters of Mary would be a whole other thread exposing the anochronistic interpretation by the RCC. Maybe another time.

Luke 11: has Jesus winding up into full preaching; the calling out was an irrelevancy in the context of his speech and he dismissed it in the context of his teachings. Read Luke 11: from beginning to end and see.

Strange, then how Luke thought it appropriate to include such an irrelevant exchange in his Gospel.

If this passage is to be taken face value, then Mary goes to Jesus and says: Hey - do something!!!! We're here at this wedding and you're contributing nothing and they're outta wine. Get moving. Jesus says: No way. I'm not ready yet. Mary says to the wait staff: Get moving and do what He tells you to (and behind the scenes - get moving you). So Jesus gives them the best wine.

So on the face of it, Jesus disses his mother in public, but when it comes down to crunch time, He does what she asks. Yeah, that's putting her into place. And very Jewish, by the way...

Answer me this: if Jesus had no special relationship with his mother, then why would this exchange occur:

He "disses" her more than once. Not sure how telling Jesus they are out of wine indicates a "special" relationship more so than any other relative or disciple. Did those around Jesus at the time of His other miracles also have a "special" relationship with Him?

Certainly Jesus loved His mother, but seemed to go out of His way to make clear that she was not part of His ministry. They relationship was that of Mother and Son.

She does seem to be the only He "disses" who is loosley connected to any of His miracles, which I believe is actually a subtle attempt by Jesus to prevent the inclination of some to elevate Mary to an object of worship of Mary.

[betty boop]

I doubt Dostoyevsky could have done this without having envisioned it himself.

I so agree, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

At your convenience, please review my post here concerning the Name of God, Almighty - and here concerning Names of God and the Trinity.

I am interested in hearing your insights and testimony!

[OLD REGGIE]

Again, repeating your post # 6921

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

"You can't get any one of them to respond to those verses...They refuse..."

"I'll bet that scripture doesn't exist in their catechism or their code of canon law..."

YOU said that, right? Ok, so how much are you betting that that scripture is not in the catechism?

OK, let's stop the charade. It is in the Catechism. Maybe a word or two is different so a "technical" but meaningless victory could be claimed.

The fact remains it is in the Catechism.

514 Many things about Jesus of interest to human curiosity do not figure in the Gospels. Almost nothing is said about his hidden life at Nazareth, and even a great part of his public life is not recounted. What is written in the Gospels was set down there "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

It is time for Iscool to pay the imaginary bet, not with $'s, but with an acknowledgement of error.

[OLD REGGIE]

1. We are not il papa's "subjects"

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302

If Unam Sanctam doesn't meet the criteria for Infallibility no Papal Bull does.

[Quix]

Now I understand no matter how many opinions from friends. I have to be very very careful about everyone`s advice. It seems the words which touched our heart are the right words. But sometimes. Our heart was messy. Or we don`t have enough experience to decide what we should do. Then finally. Prayer is the only way we should do before we make a decision.

==

I AGREE.

[bkaycee]

Facing death? What Inquisitional Tribunal did he face? What death did he face? Answer: none. He lived his life in wealth and privilege and died a natural death, untried and unmolested by the Church. The only death he faced was his natural one. Not affected by the Church whatsoever. He turned out to be a pawn in the game of international politics, but a well paid one. Conservative? More like a man whose enterprise was bought out by bigger forces because they could use him and his enterprise to their better use.

Lies? Point out a single lie that I have told about Martin Luther. Either point out my lies or recant them in as public a fashion as you have stated yourself.

I apologise, on a closer reading you only seem to be ascribing false motives for Martin Luther's actions while at the same time being unaware of his dangerous situation.

Again I apologize, these are not lies, but rather uninformed opinions.

[OLD REGGIE]

RCC say ' works is needed for salvation '.

Bible say "faith without works is dead" James 2:20

Luke 23:
[39] One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
[40] But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
[41] And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
[42] And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
[43] And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

And what was this man's "work"? It was FAITH!