It is not me who is rejecting the Gospel since I accept it with all my heart. What I reject is your religion's assertion that only it can determine what Scripture truly means because, when they do not interpret God's word correctly, they elevate man's doctrine over God's truth. I have also not turned down God's gift of eternal life that he grants by grace through faith, because I have received it by faith.
Those who insist that they can somehow "supplement" the gift by adding their own good deeds to it completely change it from a gift into debt that they then insist God owes them for their good deeds. In other words, they do not accept the gift but ignore it in favor of earning it themselves. This, of course, is impossible, so they have, by this corruption of the way in which God has granted us redemption through Christ, rejected the gift and stand condemned by their own doing. They should greatly fear the wrath of God on those who toss his gift back in his face.
The amazing grace of God never stops calling us and only death seals our fate. Those who reject the gift and die in unbelief are eternally condemned but as long as they have breath, there is still a chance. Don't die rejecting the gift!
But that is according to you, friend. Then there's according to some other Protestant who says you interpret it incorrectly as well. And on and on and on. To come along some 1,500 or 2,000 years later and claim the Church has got its own Holy Scripture wrong and now you have them and you know better what their meaning is? You must see how absurd this seems.
I can't express it any better than G.K. Chesterton, in "The Catholic Church and Coversion":
To this I owe the fact that I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense.The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, "This is all hocus-pocus"; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view.
I can understand his saying, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh."
But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed?
To say to the priests, "Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense," is sensible. To say, "Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest," is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.
I cannot look at your heart, but I can look at your posts. Some parts you do reject. The gospel says "you are not saved by faith alone" and "works cooperate with faith to make faith perfect" and "my flesh is food indeed", -- these you reject.
what I reject is your religion's assertion that only it can determine what Scripture truly means
The church surely can, being "the pillar of truth" (that part you reject also). But one does not have to know a thing about the Church to compare what Faith ALone teaches with the actual scripture.
I have also not turned down God's gift of eternal life that he grants by grace through faith, because I have received it by faith.
Well, God says, "You will have life eternal" and that part you have faith in. But God also said much that you do not accept by faith. You have some parts of the faith but not entire faith because you believe some paorts of the Gospel but not the entire gospel.
Those who insist that they can somehow "supplement" the gift by adding their own good deeds to it completely change it from a gift into debt that they then insist God owes them for their good deeds.
That is empty sophistry. Many gifts come with an obligation attached to the gift. A gift card, for example, cannot be used unless you go to the store with it. Money often are given for a particular purpose, for example, to be used on education. There is nothing in the nature of gift-giving that precludes obligation on the part of the recipient.
The amazing grace of God never stops calling us and only death seals our fate
Fate? You are kidding, no? Belloc once remarked that the greatest damage Calvinism did to human civilization was to reintroduce pagan fatalism into it. Here is an illustration.
your responses are getting more shrill with each post
Depends on the post I am responding to. In this case, I asked you to note that Titus 3:7, "being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting". That part should be read by every one who believes that he "was saved", especially by "faith alone".
Of course works matter, [...] Only faith in Jesus Christ as Savior brings eternal life in heaven
So works matter for what? And, before I get very shrill again, re-read Titus 3:7 and see how that sits with your statement.