Posted on 03/18/2015 6:21:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
It appears that you do not know what “faith alone in Christ alone” might possibly be.
That phrase is man made, and is not contained in scripture, so where do we go to find its meaning?
It is a catch phrase that is designed to fend off the clear word of God with loose jargon.
Faith is the God given ability to adhere to his commandments, which we have the opportunity to either accept or reject, of our own volition.
So “faith alone” will do the trick, if it is indeed the faith that the Father gives.
Unfortunately in this case it appears to be the faith to resist Yehova’s commandments that Paul called “the mystery of iniquity” that your posted jargon embraces.
Do you understand that?
.
That is the religion the married priest here was.
I think it is safe to say they had some other issues with their church. It has changed greatly in recent years. Married priests have always been be permitted in the Anglican communion, so obviously that wasn’t their issue. Nice try. I think one of their big issues is the Episcopalian Church’s acceptance of same sex unions.
Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Stop trying to put people back under the curse. Do you understand that?
Get some reading comprehension.
The curse is iniquity.
In this case, without any mystery.
The promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us to his commandments is in almost every epistle.
.
Stop trying to put people back under the law.
This goatherd uses a dayglo orange water bottle...
Spritz them on the tail and off they go!
I would find it very hard to wind a circle tighter than this!
Surely that rich man has been PRAYED out of Purgatory by NOW!!
Luke 16:26
I found out by merely reading John 3:18.
Of COURSE you do!
But what about AFTER 'redemption'?
How does one STAY redeemed?
Have you noticed that NONE of the MORMONs that we ping to these threads ever want to mention whether they have a valid/current TR or not??
|
Temple Recommend Questions
1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? 4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? 5 Do you live the law of chastity? 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? 9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? 10 Are you a full-tithe payer? 11 Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? 12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? 14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? 15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances? |
True.
If they already had faith; then, by definition, they had salvation.
I was in first grade when I was taught that.
Actually, by the grace of God they have seen n -u -m -e -r -o -u -s r -e - -b -u -t t -a -l -s here on this thread alone, but it is futile for those who stop up their ears, but it's good to have truth on these kind of threads.
Indeed.
John Henry Newman
In a later age the worship of images was introduced [Note 11]. {371} 4. The principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious in Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such passages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits lurking under the pagan statues. It is intimated also by Origen, who, after saying that Scripture so strongly "forbids temples, altars, and images," that Christians are "ready to go to death, if necessary, rather than pollute their notion of the God of all by any such transgression," assigns as a reason "that, as far as possible, they might not fall into the notion that images were gods."
...the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class...
In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
The introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition in the West than in the East. John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html
Sola scriptura is a doctrine of Protestant Christians. Defining sola scriptura as: "Holy Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”
that doctrine is found in the ONLY document literally proven to be unchanged and intact (Masoretic Torah)
The doctrine of sola scriptura is not in Holy Scripture. I don't think any Protestants who would claim the Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism as their only scripture or as their basis for sola scriptura.
For the third time: It is here at the Grace Online Library, the last two sections of the page.
Do I really have to copy and paste it all here for you to be able to read it?
One part of my argument is that sola scriptura fails it's own test. The doctrine ("Holy Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”) is not in Holy Scripture.
What would be your proof that it does not fail in this part?
Since Torah is what is being fulfilled, it is all of the doctrine; there is nothing else..
It seems you're not one who adheres to the specific doctrine of sola scriptura as do Protestant Churches – such as doctrinal standards of Westminster Theological Seminary or the Doctrinal Statements of the Lutheran Church.
Your idea of doctrine and theirs is quite different, so I think it is a disconnect to debate their doctrine of sola scriptura with you.
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.