Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: JLLH; rzman21
Firstly, Christ's sacrifice is/was necessary for salvation. Without that, nothing works, hence those in Gehanna waited for Christ's sacrifice and then were saved.

Christ Himself tells us that Repentence (Luk 13:3), belief (faith), baptism (Mk 16:16), eating of his flesh and drinking His blood (Jn 6:54) and enduring to the end (Matt 24:13) is needed --> do read scripture

To restrict it to ONLY repentance and faith without baptism or eucharist or endurance to the end negates Christ's words -- why do that?

Scripture is inerrant but individual interpretors are not...

244 posted on 01/05/2012 2:24:10 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos

I’m sorry, but YOUR words negate the Gospel as outlined in Scripture (see, for example, Hebrews 10:10-14, 9:22, 13:12; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 4:2-5; Romans 9:30; Ephesians 2:13, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9;Galatians 2:16 - just for starters.) It makes QUITE clear over and over throughout Scripture that saving faith is what is needed - PERIOD. Christ’s baptism with water was to show humanity that He was God’s son, and also to show submission to God the Father. It was NOT because HE needed to be “saved” Himself (which would be the implication of what you are saying.) The Scriptures above make it plain that Christ’s blood (on the cross, not in a cup!) is what saves through repentance and faith. The thief on the cross was saved. Ditto for Abraham whose “faith was counted as righteousness.” There is no indication that OT patriarchs who were surely Godly men were not “saved” — but no evidence they partook in the symbolic acts of which you speak. I have heard Catholics try to explain this by saying they were under “special grace” or some such, but there is no Scriptural evidence for that either. If one continues to make exception after exception, the OT is full of them and where does it end? Either one believes the Gospel as explained throughout Scripture or one adds to it based on a few verses taken out of context. I choose the former. It’s not my interpretation, but what Scripture says.

You are welcome to reply, but I’ve been down this road a lot with Catholics here and frankly it’s never profitable because we do not agree on the complete authority of Scripture. Where one does not rely on the same TRUTH, there can be no agreement. I thank the Lord His sacrifice was sufficient and He doesn’t need my help to save me! Thank God I do not worship a puny feeble Savior.


246 posted on 01/06/2012 4:36:49 PM PST by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson