It’s best not to take much of what he says TOO seriously. 
Posted on 03/15/2014 5:31:38 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
It seems to be a matter of common sense to say that good people will go to heaven and evil people will go to hell. Something would be terribly wrong if God could send an innocent, sincere, charitable, helpful person to hell. Yet sometimes people suggest that a person's salvation depends upon his faith alone, and not upon the good things he does, or how he lives, or whether he obeys the Ten Commandments. The Bible never mentions "faith alone" (except in one passage which says faith alone is dead--James 2:24) The concept first came into existence during the Reformation, when Luther and other Protestants split away from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther's concept of how a person gets to heaven was different from what had been taught by the Catholic Church. Luther's phrase "faith alone" emphasized this difference.
In the early Christian Church there was no controversy about whether a person could be saved by faith alone without obeying the Lord and living well. Early Christians knew that loving the Lord meant obeying His commandments, (Matthew 19:17; John 14:21; 15:10) and that salvation depended on bearing fruit (that is, doing good works). (Matthew 7:19; 16:27; 21:43; Luke 3:9; John 5:29; 15:1-16; Revelation 20:13; 22:12) In fact there are so many passages which say that a good life is necessary, that it would be quite a contradiction if the Bible did say that faith alone is enough.
Probably the closest the Bible comes to mentioning "faith alone" is Paul's phrase, "man is justified by faith without the works of the law." (Romans 3:28) Sometimes this phrase has been used to defend or promote the idea that man is saved by faith alone. But if we look at Paul's statement in context we can see that Paul was simply saying that you can be saved without being a Jew. (Read Romans 3:28-31) Some early Christians felt that to be a good Christian, one should obey all the ritual laws of the Jewish Church. "Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, `Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'" (Acts 15:1) Now Paul knew that it made no difference to the Lord whether a person was circumcised or not, so he made it clear that it is not necessary to keep the laws about washing, sacrifices, offerings, holy days, diet, and circumcision. (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 2; Romans 3; 2:25-28; Hebrews 8-10) "Does this blessedness then come only on the circumcised, and not on the uncircumcised also?" (Romans 4:9) "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what counts." (1 Corinthians 7:19) "In Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working by love." (Galatians 5:6) Paul says here not "faith alone," but "faith which works by love". Faith, works and love are all necessary.
These and other references make it clear that when Paul said a man is saved by faith without the works of the law, he meant that a person is saved without circumcision and other ritualistic works. There are other laws, which relate not to ritual but to living well, as for example the Ten Commandments and laws such as "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) Paul made it clear that it was necessary to keep these laws in order to be saved. He said, "Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor homosexuals... nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9,10; see also Galatians 5:19-20) Paul had no thought at all of doing away with the law: "Do we abrogate the law through faith? Far from it! We establish the law." (Romans 3:31) He knew that salvation depended on action, not just on faith: "Not the hearers of the law shall be justified by God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) And he taught that every loving person will obey God's law: "Love does no harm to a neighbor: therefore love is the fulfillment of he law." (Romans 13:10)
It is clear from the passages above that according to Paul, we must keep the Lord's commandments and live a good life in order to be saved. This agrees completely with what other disciples said about living well. What could be more direct that this statement of James: "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?... Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.... By works a person is justified, and not by faith alone." (James 2:14-24) John showed that you can't have faith unless you love others when he said, "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:8) He also taught that we can and should obey God's commands: "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous." (1 John 5:3)
For any Christian, the way to eternal life is to follow Jesus and do as He says. And what He says is very plain: "If you will enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17) This is not only the way to life, but the way to happiness: "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them." (John 13:17) It is the way to love the Lord: "He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me." (John 14:21) And it is the way to be His friend: "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you." (John 15:14)
Keep on stating it.
Perhaps it'll come true.
Why would ANYONE claim that Christ did a very poor job of holding His CHURCH together??
The reason “works” are UPplayed in Catholicism, is so the unlearned would think that by ONLY following RCC teachings, they will be saved by virtue of that behavior.
The one He called SATAN just a short time later?
Are you arguing for or against works as a requirement for salvation?
I just READ that... somewhere...
Oh yeah...
I’m not sure I’m following your point on this.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
Well; they MJUST have gotten the HS through the SACRAMENTS of the CHURCH.
--CatholicDude(NOW would be a good time to return to the arms of Mary.)
Human acts are NOT required for salvation but a result of it. Catholics and others argue that “works” as they define them are necessary. They intimate, although deny, that efforts on behalf of man are necessary for salvation. I point out the Jesus said that the “works of God” are to believe on Jesus.
Perhaps my reference was a bit obscure...
Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me:
If the church can make the claim that Jesus did, somehow, change Simon's name to Peter; then it ALSO has to OVERLOOK the FACT that He changed it yet again; in Matthew 16:23.
If you’re not familiar with Elsie, he takes some getting used to.
It’s best not to take much of what he says TOO seriously.
He uses a lot of tongue in cheek....
It’s best not to take much of what he says TOO seriously.
He uses a lot of tongue in cheek....
He’s been monkeyin’ around for a LOOooong time now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LF85tVY5f4
Christ said that after He noted that God the Father had conveyed the fact of Christ’s divinity, to Peter.
And leading them to each to a different understanding, as noted by the multitude of Protestant religions?
James - “Faith without works is Dead”
“and the RCC teaching of ‘on this rock’ is quite the opposite”
Now you’re just being fatuous.
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”
“Peter” is the nearest noun PRIOR to “this”.
Given your willingness to mis-state clear and demonstrable English grammar, you are no longer worthy of debating on this thread.
It is still faith however. Granted the person is not much use to the Kingdom while on this planet....he is nonetheless saved.
Ephesians 1 tells us we have been sealed up by the Holy Spirit who is given as a pledge of our inheritence.
I find nothing in the NT that ever says we are unsealed.
Same old, same old.
No, He does not lead to multiple different understandings.
How about some specifics instead of just generalizations?
And why the presumption that different denominations by default mean different interpretations of Scripture?
Give us some examples......
And Jesus didn't say "On YOU I will build my church"
Talk about mangling grammar. That's not how you talk to someone. If He was addressing Peter and telling him that He would build His church on Peter, Jesus would have said *On YOU I will build my church* instead *on THIS I will build my church*.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.