@cburton103 Thank you, that's helpful. But doesn't it make sense that if the Church is the body of Christ, then the visibile structure is Christ? The Word and Sacraments? Church leaders are important to maintain order, but I think it's clear that they are only visible signs because they are called to preach the Word, etc! So it's about Christ, not a hierarchy. I believe that non-Lutherans can be perfectly part of Christ's body through faith, not affiliation with a church. What do you think?
Ephesians 2:8, for example, is pretty clear: justification is "not your own doing."
James 2:24? First we should figure out what James means when he says "justified." A valid definition in this context is "shown to have faith." This is what James is talking about, as he says, "I will show you my faith by my works." So James is right on! One is shown to have faith by works. If you want to be right before God by works, good luck. James 2:10 says that if you sin once, you break the whole law.
Understanding of what Jesus did on the cross and coming to Jesus by faith in that His blood covered your sin is the first step to Faith. Then once the HS enters a person, they will start to act like Jesus and holy, God motivated behaviors, work will come about. Not Protestant or Catholic but catholic - one faith. NO Faith, NO works = not a christian. Following Christ and works will come about. Period
A Protestant may not be able to answer your question but a Bible believer sure can!
Who is the book of James written to?
It's obvious James is talking about OT salvation and not Church Age salvation. Abraham and Rahab (v25) were justified by FAITH + WORKS just as the Jews will be in the Tribulation.
Romans was written to YOU!
But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that JUSTIFIETH the ungodly, his FAITH is counted for righteousness Rom 4:5
@drbible1611 Are you suggesting that James, which was written in what you call the "Church Age", was written to people from generations before? This seems a bit strange...
Even if you were correct here, you'd still have to deal with Rom 2:6-8, Mt 19:16-24, etc.
In your example from Romans, Paul is talking about works of the law, just as he is in other places (Rom 3:20, 28 - directly before your example.)
Compare what Rom 4 and James 2 say about Abraham. Clearly, Paul is talking about the law.
James was written before The "RC" Council at Jerusalem where "pope" Peter declared ex-cathedra: "We believe that through GRACE [no mention of works, baptism, sacraments] of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved" Acts 15:11
Mt 19:16-24 is PRECRUCIFIXION OT salvation by faith + works
Rom 2:6-8 is talking about OT salvation of sinners without Scripture according to conscience not NT salvation. I presume you are not a Jew but a Gentile
@drbible1611 Do you really claim that what Jesus taught about justification has no bearing on believers today? That seems like quite a strange claim - to say that what our savior taught does not apply to us.
Also, what makes you think that Romans 2 is speaking about "OT salvation" and Romans 3 is talking about "NT salvation"? I just read Romans 1-3 to try and see what made the supposed delineation, but I could find none.
It seems the delineation was presupposed by you because of your theology.
@drbible1611 Jesus doesn't have to use the word "justification" to talk about it, so please don't be unnecessarily difficult. Jesus does tell us how to have everlasting life, see the kingdom of God, etc. This includes being justified.
Jesus did say "follow me" in Mt 19:21. This is an instruction to follow all that he teaches, and Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5 that Baptism is necessary.
The gospel is the good news of God's mercy and love revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
@cburton103 Where in Mt 19 did Jesus mention His death, resurrection, BAPTISM & SACRAMENTS as requirements for salvation-all He said was KEEP the COMMANDMENTS (Mosaic Law)?
Mt 19:21 "follow me"=Mt 9:9 Matthew got up and followed Him!
Where in John 3 did Jesus mention His death for sins, resurrection & KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS?
You are to "follow ALL that Jesus teaches"? How about Mt 5:38-42? Do you follow Him here to the letter? Be honest now (9th Commandment).
@drbible1611 You never answered this: What makes you think that Romans 2 is speaking about "OT salvation" and Romans 3 is talking about "NT salvation"? I read Romans 1-3 but I could find no delineation.
I'm not sure why you're acting like everything Jesus wants us to believe has to be in one place. Jesus is the Word, and he speaks to us through the whole Bible (through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, of course).
Mt 5:38-42 Jesus is teaching a point using hyperbole. We don't follow to a letter.
@cburton103 Perhaps you can find no delineation because: "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...neither can he KNOW them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned" 1 Cor 2 :14
Read Acts 10:2 & 35 onward. Precrucifixion Cornelius would have attained salvation by Rom 2:6-7. Post crucifixion he couldn't obtain eternal life by his good works/fear of God he needed to believe in Jesus Christ. Ditto eunuch in Acts 8.
@drbible1611 I actually just read through Acts 8 and 10 several days ago, so they're still quite fresh in my mind. I'm asking you to address in Romans 1-3 where you believe Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, makes a delineation between types of salvation. I'm limiting your answer to these three chapters, because that's what you made the argument with. 1 Cor 2:13-14 aren't talking about the same thing as Romans 1-3. The quotes from Acts also have very different contexts. Use Romans 1-3.
@drbible1611 Interesting point. I'm not so sure that Paul is only talking about the Law of Moses here though, because he talks about how the Law is written on the hearts of Gentiles too. It makes much more sense that Paul is talking about the moral law here, and the Mosaic Law in other places. It seems he is showing a transition, like you say, but a transition from the Mosaic Law to the Law of faith/grace. At the end of chap 3, Paul says he's not getting rid of this Law. Your thoughts on this?
@cburton103 I think you are beginning to see it. The Mosaic law (for the Jews) consisted of some 600 separate statutes moral, ceremonial & civil. Clearly a Gentile could not be held accountable for the latter two unless he became a Jew, however, his conscience bears witness to the moral law & prior to the crucifixion the Gentile would be judged according to his works. After the crucifixion works play no part in attaining or maintaining eternal life-it is a FREE GIFT Eph 2:8-9 Titus 3:5.
@drbible1611 I understand what the Mosaic Law is. I also understand that after Christ, the Mosaic Law has no power. I believe that it is grace that saves us, and that we receive this grace by responding to God's call with a complete faith, which is composed of faith working through love. This is the understanding that the Church that Christ founded has had for 2000 years, and I have no intention of leaving it. How would you address the absence of justification by faith alone in the early Church?
@cburton103 Of course it has power. The moral law condemns an unsaved person. It is a schoolmaster which points the sinner to Christ that he may be justified by faith Gal 3:24.
No, your salvation is not attained by grace through faith-it is thro' the sacraments of your Church ie WORKS SALVATION!
What you do with the light God gives you is between you and Him.
The doctrines of the early Church are found in Rom thro Phil and NOT the Church of Rome. Read Eph 2:8-9 & Titus 3:5- NO SACRAMENTS!
@drbible1611 What do you mean by "works salvation"? If you believe that Sacraments have no part in our salvation, then what do you do with 1 Peter 3:21? "baptism... now saves you" From this verse (and others), it seems quite clear that Baptism certainly plays a role in our salvation. For a couple other examples, look at Acts 2:38 and John 3:3-5.
Is H20 Baptism ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for salvation? According to Catholic dogma it is.
Therefore an unbaptized Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, and a Heretic like myself who was baptized into the Catholic faith but now willfully rejects not just one but most Catholic dogmas is damned to Hell.
I presume you believe "OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SALVATION?
@drbible1611 Your understanding of the Catholic belief on Baptism lacks necessary nuances. He who directs his will to serving God to the best of his ability could fall under the baptism of desire, and a martyr could fall under the baptism of blood category.
I do believe that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Church is the Body of Christ - its visible structure is the Catholic Church, but there can be some who are outside of the CC but still (imperfectly) members of the Church.
@cburton103 I think it is you who does not understand the teaching of your own Church.
Jesus Christ was very clear when He said: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God.
@drbible1611 There are clearly some exceptions, e.g. the thief on the cross. But Christ's point in John 3 is to make a distinction between the flesh and the Spirit. It IS necessary to be born anew of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Baptism happens to be a very key place where this happens. Baptism identifies us with God's family; Christ puts His name on us, so to speak. Which is a pretty cool and important thing.
@cburton103 What is "the Church" that you speak of?
I would contend that "the Church" is not what bears the name "CC" or claims submission to the Roman Pontiff, but that which preaches the pure Gospel and properly administers the Sacraments. In this sense you are right: there is no salvation outside "the Church." But that is because "the Church" is the only thing that has God's saving Word, and that is why there is no salvation outside of it.
@thatonelutheran The Church is the body of Christ. Those who are baptized into this body can hope for salvation. Now, I think it's clear from the understanding of the Early Church Fathers (and from the NT) that this Church has a visible structure of deacons, priests (presbyters) and bishops. This visible structure has continued through the ages via apostolic succession in the CC.
Non-Catholic Christians may be imperfectly part of this body, but Christ desires that we would all be perfectly one.
@drbible1611 And no, I can say nothing on the state of your soul or anyone else's, so I don't believe you're damned to Hell. That judgment is God's alone. I believe this falls squarely under this verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
Please continue on with the baptism/salvation conversation. I thought it was important to include this, but I don't want to derail our conversation with a side comment such as this.
@drbible1611 I am a Lutheran and I also reject many Catholic dogmas. But Catholicism does have a good sense of the importance of the Sacraments. Granted, I believe they have 5 too many. But the biblical ones are very important. Baptism clearly plays a role in salvation according to Scripture. "He who believes and is Baptized will be saved." Baptism is very instrumental in creating saving faith, by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Sacraments are ways that Christ comes to us today!
The thief on the cross moved his jaw up and down to take a public stand with Jesus by calling him Lord and saying, "remember me when you come into your kingdom." There's your work buddy, and I can go on answering you correctly, so don't be saying we can't answer, unless of course you want to torture us like you did right up to the 16th century and burn at the stake.
This is why I left the catholic faith, because they fail to keep God first in their lives and they fail to understand what the Bible actually says and can only understand what their heads can wrap around. May God present the truth of his word to you in a congregation of lies. God Bless you. I will be praying for you.
2 Timothy 1:9 "Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began." So if what you are saying is true, then this means the bible contradicts itself because it clearly says not because of our works. We are saved through grace alone by the Father through faith alone. Isaiah 64:6 States that any of our "good deeds" that we present are like filthy rags (dirty tampons) to the Lord.
@90ACG - yes we know that works of man are filthy rags. But how about God working in and through us (eph 3:20-21) producing 30, 60, or 100 fold. You call the work of God in and through us filthy rags???? I think not.
@imromancatholic Ahh HAA! there we GO! I was stating that OUR deeds are really not good, but those THROUGH the Holy Spirit is the only one that produces good works (Galatians 5:22). I never stated in my comment that God's deeds were bad for he is the ONLY ONE capable of good and righteous things. Now let me ask you a question my friend. Did Faith of the lord or works for the lord come first?
@imromancatholic Now back to the main issue of this video. How are we saved by works and faith when Titus 3:5-7 states so clearly "5He saved us, not because of works done by US in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the HOLY SPIRIT, 6 Whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." and many more verses throughout the NT.
@90ACG - good works are excercise to the spiritual body like running or lifting weights is excercise to the physical body. The Eucharist being the food for the soul as bread is food for our physical bodies. Without proper diet and excercise the spiritual body will become weak just like the physical body.
@imromancatholic ...(cont). If we are to say that it is required, then we deny the salvation of the criminal of the cross, hence rejecting Jesus' statement that he was saved (Luke 23:43). Furthermore, if it is required for salvation, don't you think Paul would have put a much higher emphasis on its importance? Paul actually says he isn't calld to baptism, but to preach the word of truth so his hearers could believe in the gospel and live (1 Corinthians 1:13-17).
@YeshuaisLord100 - First of all baptism was not commanded for the world until the great commission after the resurrection in Matt 28-Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them....The baptism prior to that was the baptism of John which did not confer the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was not a requirement for the thief. Secondly do you say then that Peter overemphasized baptism? "Baptism now SAVES YOU" in 1 Peter? Also see acts 2:38 where Peter says baptism is for everyone.
@imromancatholic So everyone after the criminal is required to be baptized? Makes no sense and there is no scriptural support for that at all. That would make john's baptisms completely pointless, even though in reality his baptism was a SYMBOL for people to turn and repent of their sins. Regarding your reference to first Peter, "eight in all, were saved through water, and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you." Baptism is a symbol of belief (romans 6:3-5, colossians 2:12).
@YeshuaisLord100 - Why do you feel the need to change the word symbol and baptism around. It doesn't say that baptism is the symbol. READ CAREFULLY. The symbol is the saving of the people on the ark through the flood. Though it is true the actions of baptism, the water for instance is symbolic of what happens. An outward sign of an inward grace.
@imromancatholic I am aware of what the verse says but this doesn't disprove what I am saying; baptism is symbolic of our union with Christ. Read Acts Chapter 10- Cornelius and his relatives had received the Holy Spirit and believed before they were baptized. So are you saying that the Holy Spirit living inside you is not enough to save?
@YeshuaisLord100 - I am quite familiar with Acts 10. Cornelius is an exception to the rule of which God can make as he pleases. John the baptist recieved the Holy Spirit in his mothers womb. Do you claim that everyone can recieve the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb? Show me who else recived the HS BEFORE baptism. Peter says clearly in Acts 2:38 that it happens with baptism. He says clearly in 1 Pet 3 Baptism NOW saves you. Everyone with the Holy Spirit living inside them is saved.
@imromancatholic You see, this is the problem here. You want to justify your position by reading into the text and not wanting to believe what scripture is clearly teaching. You can't just say Cornelius is an exemption to the rule; it doesn't say that anywhere in scripture-you have to read into the text to get to that conclusion. Yes, baptism saves you, because its symbolic of what Christ did on the cross. You ask for more people who recieved the Spirit before baptism?...(cont.)
@YeshuaisLord100 - Jesus says in Mark 16 "believe and be baptized and you will be saved". He does not say "believe and be saved then get baptized". I have even known protestants who want this passage removed from scripture.
@imromancatholic ...(cont.)The eunuch in Acts 8 and the jailer in Acts 16:25-33. The jailer asked Paul "what he must do to be saved" and Paul responded, "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." There is NOTHING about baptism there, nor does it say anything about baptism being necessarily in Romans 10:9 . Paul, after he had accepted the Lord, sent him to be baptized. Those protestants prob. want that scripture removed because they aren't in the original manuscripts...(cont.)
@YeshuaisLord100 - So Paul contradicts Jesus who says "believe and be baptized an you will be saved". No one who believes gets baptized. There is no contradiction. It's not Jesus or Paul. And what do Paul and the jailor do IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. They baptize the jailor and his family. Why not wait around? Because baptism is salvific, the jailor has let prisoners escape and he is in danger of death. We don't have original manuscripts. We have old manuscripts but they aren't orig.
You say there is nothing about baptism with the Eunuch. Yet oddly enough after phillip has preached to him he says baptize me now. How odd if Phillip never mentioned baptism. We don't have all that Phillip said do we. You say belief is enough? Belief in what? Peter preached baptism in Acts 2:38. Everybody got baptized. He said it conferred the holy spirit for those who believe. Now you don't think receiving the Holy Spirit saves?
We don't have all the Paul preached in Acts d 16 but it clearly included baptism because the jailor got baptized. Seems likely he must have mentioned it before Paul mentioned about belief because there is no inidcation that he did it after. So quite clearly part of what he was to believe in was BAPTISM!!! Clearly Phillip did say something about baptism.
@imromancatholic ...(cont.) at any rate, those scriptures don't contradict the rest of scripture, which teaches that baptism is not a requirement for salvation
@YeshuaisLord100 - I simply don't know how you can get around "baptism NOW SAVES YOU". It says what it says. You have no passage that says that one does not have to be baptized and Christ commands that the world be baptized in Matt 28 - The great commission. It is only in your head that baptism is not neccessary for salvation and so you twist the scriptures to fit your thinking.
@imromancatholic I simply don't see how you can get around all the examples I provided in Acts of people that were saved BEFORE they were baptized. You never answered to any of the these scriptures, instead you just went back to that one verse which you take out of context. No, you and your church is the one that twists scripture. It wasn't until Augustine (4th century ad) that this idea of baptismal regeneration was popularized.
@YeshuaisLord100 - I just saw your posts speaking about the jailor and the Eunuch and responded. What I asked you for were examples where the Holy Spirit was given BEFORE baptism. You provided no such passages. You seem to want to use the bible as if it contains all the words spoken in every meeting by everyone. But John clearly says at the end of his Gospel that it does not. It is clear that Philip DID speak about acts because the Eunuch said why don't you baptize me now. Same with jailr
@imromancatholic those examples were of people who received the Holy Spirit before baptism. At first you say Cornelius is an exception to the rule(which is ridiculous) and ignore that the jailer and his household and the eunuch received the Holy Spirit, then were baptized. I said Paul said nothing to the eunuch and baptism being a requirement for salvation; don't put words in my mouth. I am aware that in both instances, they were baptized; after believing and receiving the Spirit...(cont.)
@imromancatholic ...(cont.) we could keep arguing about this, but the bottomline is that the Paul clearly didnt put emphasis it in 1 Corinthians 1, and you have major holes in your idea that Cornelius is just an "exception" to the rule, as well as the fact of the thief on the cross and the other examples in Acts. Baptism is important, because its about confession of sins and public profession of becoming Christian; its just not a requirement.
@YeshuaisLord100 - The holes are not mine. Again it is quite clear that Phillip preached baptism to the Enuch as a part of the good news. Isn't it the good news that saves?
"[35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
[36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" " Now where did the Enuch get the idea that he should be baptized? Hmmmm. It must be included in the phrase "the good news of Jesus". Pretty clear.
@YeshuaisLord100 Was circumcision pointless? No, it pointed toward greater things to come just as John's baptism did and I am quite sure that God recognized the repentence of those who went through John's baptism. But it is clear from Acts 20 that it was not the same as baptism after the resurrection.
@YeshuaisLord100 - as a point of clarification the saving of the people in the ark is a symbol of baptism. The "baptism that NOW SAVES YOU.". Now saves you goes with baptism and the salvation of those in the ark from the flood goes with symbol.
@YeshuaisLord100 - Your argument is weak. Sorry. Paul is dealing with the issue of division not whether or not one should be baptized. He planted seeds therefore he did not get alot of converts. They came later when others "watered". For instance the thessalonians in acts 17 rejected him but then later we know that there was a large community there. Paul would most certainly have baptized if People wanted it. Were the Apostles wrong to baptize 7000 in the first few days of Christianity.
@imromancatholic your argument is weak. Sorry. There is no scriptural support for what you are saying, nor is there any historical context. Paul and the other apostles had plenty of converts and if baptism was a required function Paul would have dealt with it as such, but he doesn't. Baptism is important-it was taught by Jesus and the early church (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:41), but nowhere does it say it is required for salvation...(cont.)
@90ACG - The passage is pretty clear. We don't "get saved" by works. One could theoretically build a skyscraper to the heavens and fill it with poor and feed them. If he is not regenerate, i.e. BAPTIZED, he would go to hell. The passage is talking about baptism. However once baptized we must bear fruit. That is clear from Rom 2:4-8, Matt 25 sheep and goates, John 15, etc. etc.. You must believe Once Saved Always saved which forces you in to the false theology that denies these passages.
@imromancatholic Scripture is very clear throughout the old and new testaments that a believer is saved by grace through faith (Habakkuk 2:2-4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16; 3:11). If we are to accept the catholic position that man is justified by faith and works then we are bringing Christianity down to level of religion, because all religion is works based; accept for true orthodox Christianity. Regarding baptism...(cont.)
How can anyone be justified (put right) by faith alone and not by works which are sacrifices? To love and to good to others who may disgust you is what God wants. I am able to go out tonight, get drunk, cause harm to loads of people and then feel ok about it because I believe in Jesus. I don't think so. Life in Christ by baptism is a hard road to follow and it takes works and faith and the Grace of God to get through,
As a christian we preform good works without being told. The verse is saying that if we do not do good works then we have no faith. To say otherwise would contradict multiple other verses in the Bible.
@meandeanmiler But, you can have faith without works...see video #1 in this series. Faith can indeed give rise to good works, but it isn't automatic. As James 2:26 says, faith without works, is like the body without the spirit - dead. A body without a spirit is still a body, it's just a dead body. Faith without works is still faith, it's just a dead faith. Works are necessary to complete faith, which James 2 also tells us. The Bible doesn't say faith automatically results in good works.
@CrimsonCatholic "The Bible doesn't say faith automatically results in good works." Really? So when Christ says that "every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit," what do you think He means? What else can true faith result in, especially if "a healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit," and "every healthy tree bears good fruit"? Think about it. Pray about it. Pax Domini +
@cathomania Your statement is just an arrogant statement made out of religious pride. The pride of which the pharisees whom Jesus stood up against and revealed all of their flaws. I caution you to turn away from such religious pride. I use to be catholic and by reading my bible and through studying scripture I found deep biblical holes within the catholic church that so many are blinded by arrogance and pride rather than humbling yourselves. I advise you to turn back to Jesus in your faith.
"a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.2:16). Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
@kiwichristian2009 Translation wrong, Gal.2:16 says "Faith of Jesus Christ" A genitive. Rom.10:9 says to believe from the heart! God must first give us a new heart to believe. Thats why Gal.5:22 says faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Abraham Believed God because God had given him a new heart. God saved him. His justification came only by the work of Christ. We can only be made righteous by Christ dying for us to free us from the Law which demands death. The wages of sin is DEATH! Rom.6:23
@lchiddle Re: I haven't said anything about whether I believe we have a freewill or not.
I know you haven't. Other Protestants have told me that we have no free will because God chooses everything for us. Directly linked or not, I think it is a source of disunity in belief.
"It really doesn't matter what the RCC says, if they contradict the Bible they are in error."
Again, true if the RCC is NOT the church established by Christ. Not true if the RCC is that church guided by the HS.
Re: It really doesn't matter what the RCC says - Not true if the RCC is that church guided by the HS.
I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit, from the time of Constantine the RCC have become nothing less then bullies abusing God's name and word to commit atrocious acts.
@lchiddle Re: I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit, from the time of Constantine the RCC have become nothing less then bullies abusing God's name and word to commit atrocious acts.
Now you are talking about the real debate. This is the discussion that everyone seems to be avoiding and instead discusses passages.
I happen to disagree with you because I do not see any truth to your statement.
@lchiddle Re: I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit (2)
To be blunt, I think all Protestants believe the same thing you do and this is the real issue. I think that people hate the Catholic church because they believe that Christ would not build a church that has sinners in charge of it.
I have had evangelicals tell me that all denominations are wrong because they have sinful leaders. That self worth attitude endangers their own souls.
Ok, I'm watching more of your videos because you're just parroting the same point over and over.
Let me know when you have real questions a Protestant cannot answer.
With no faith, you're doomed.
Faith without Works is wasted Faith.
Faith and Works, no matter how strong or how numerous, are not able to save you. The Grace of God is WHY we get saved. Being faithful and following God's way is the path to be saved....but not WHY you are saved.
@Curveball "Let me know when you have real questions a Protestant cannot answer."
Okay. Why do Protestants turn their backs on the Word of God and follow beliefs which were made up by men in just the past 500 years?
For instance, name just one Christian prior to Luther who was not taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Find one who was taught "born again" meant anything other than baptism, or believed in Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura. All of these "beliefs" are "make-beliefs."
Just about every church claims it's origin is the real Church of Christ.
Just like your Church lies and says Peter was the first Pope, when there is no historical evidence to support it outside of Catholic dogma written by Catholics.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. (Rom. 15:15-18)
If Peter was to be the head of anything, the argument in Mark 9:33-36 would never have happened.
@Curveball Re: Just like your Church lies and says Peter was the first Pope, when there is no historical evidence to support it outside of Catholic dogma written by Catholics.
It is not a lie that Christ gave the keys to his church to Peter. An Atheist would likewise say to you that God does not exist because history shows that everything about God is made up by man. Do you go to Atheists to get your history or the church?
I get my history from the church that has existed for 2000 years.
Well I can use the Bible to disprove your claim that Peter was even in Rome in 67 AD.
Paul is in Rome, and says only Luke was with him. 2 Timothy 4:11.
In fact, of all the writings of Paul in Rome, never once did he even mention Peter. You would think if Peter was a 'Pope', then Mark wouldn't have said only Luke was with him in Rome.
In 2 Timothy 4:16, Pau said no one stood with him. If Peter was there and Pope, then he betrayed and abandoned Paul. Peter wasn't in Rome.
@Curveball Re: I can use the Bible to disprove your claim that Peter was even in Rome in 67 AD.
First, it is not my claim.
Second, I can, more than likely, produce a verse that appears to contradict anything you tell me.
Understanding what the bible is really telling us is the real topic, not providing evidence of contradictions.
You are entitled to your opinion but I will not accept your opinions as fact; especially when you say things like "your church lies". That is childish.
I said your church lies, I didn't say you did. Your church says Peter was the first Pope. I proved that wrong with the bible. It isn't my opinion, the bible said it. I am just showing you the truth in God's word. You believing it or not is on your head, not mine.
@Curveball Re: I said your church lies, I didn't say you did.
I did not accuse you of saying I lied, I accused you of saying that I made the claim that Peter was the first Pope.
The evidence you provieded in scripture is proof, it is your belief that it is proof. Scripture tells us we must eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood to have eternal life and most Protestants claim this is metaphorical and not actual.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. Opinions are not proof.
MATTHEW 26:20-30 Jesus clearly says Bread, and 'Fruit of the Vine' meaning wine.
Unleavened bread and wine are symbols of Christs Body and blood. Did Jesus cut his flesh and pass it around to be eaten? Did he catch the blood from that wound in a cup? No.
@Curveball "Well obviously Holy Communion is symbolic."
Not only is this heretical view in direst opposition to what Jesus said, it is also a minority opinion that was never taught to any Christian until 500 years ago when a man "made it up." If this is not true, please give me the name of just one Christian who was not taught the real presence of Christ prior to Luther.
@Curveball "What did Yeshua say was His body and blood at the last Supper? Unleavened Bread and Wine."
You need to take your own advice about reading the Bible. It does not say what you wrote. Jesus did not say His Body was the Bread. He said the Bread was His Body. And when He said it; it happened. The bread became the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread--just as it does every day from east to west in fulfillment of the prophecy of Mal 1:11.
MATTHEW 26:21 - "And as they were eating, Jesus took BREAD, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.”
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
That is why it is Symbolic. Like the bread He blessed and passed out saying it was His body, and the fruit of the vine was his blood.... that is what Communion is. Being Symbolic, as it was when Jesus said it Himself. Done as a Symbolic way of remembering Him.
That does not mean the bread turns into flesh, and wine turns to blood literally.
They are Symbolic, not literal.
If your church teaches you it's literal, then ask to get the wine like YOU SHOULD BE DOING.
@Curveball please contrast Jn 6:51-58 where Jesus speaks literally with John 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 where He speaks of food symbolically. When the disciples think he is talking about real food, Jesus is quick to show them in plain language that he was speaking figuratively. But in John 6:66, Jesus’ disciples leave him and he makes no attempt to soften his words. He meant exactly what he said.
I'm seriously in awe that you cannot grasp something so simple. Jesus clearly said it was break and wine, and said "DO THIS in remembrance of Me." Do this? What would 'this' have been? Exactly what he was doing. Passing out unleavened bread as His body, and Wine as his blood.
Now answer my question....Jesus charged us with doing it, the bread and wine....why do you only get to do one and not the wine? Why not? Jesus said do it, and you don't.
Tell me what Church you attend and where it is. I'll see for myself if it does Communion with Bread and wine.
I hope you do not lie.
But I'm glad you came around on the fact that bread doesn't literally become flesh, and wine doesn't literally become blood. It's symbolic, not literal.
I attend a Roman Catholic Church in Brentwood, TN, But I have received communion under both forms throughout the United States. It is common everywhere.
"I'm glad you came around on the fact that bread doesn't literally become flesh"
Are you stupid or just in denial? Let me spell it out for you: they become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This has been the teaching since the time of the Apostles.
@Curveball As I said before, not only is your heretical opinion in direst opposition to what Jesus said, it is also a minority opinion that was never taught to any Christian until 500 years ago when a man "made it up." If this is not true, please give me the name of just one Christian who was not taught the real presence of Christ prior to Luther.
So me where Jesus told me to call a man father. Oh yeah, Jesus said not to call anyone father. What do you call priests and the pope again?
Show me where I'm supposed to wear a cross, kiss crosses, bow to crosses, statues of Jesus, Mary, and Saints and bow to them, pray to them, and kiss their feet. Oh yeah, God said that is Idolatry....
Tell me where I'm supposed to pray the rosary. Oh yeah, Jesus said DO NOT do repetitious prayers like heathens do.
@Curveball "S[h]o[w] me where Jesus told me to call a man father"
How about if I show you where Jesus Himself calls another man father? In Lk 16:24 Jesus speaks of "Father Abraham. In Mt 19:19, He says, "honor your father and mother."
In Mt 23, Jesus is denouncing the Pharisee's and scribes. He is emphasizing that legitimate authority and truth ultimately comes from God.
It's comical that you take the figurative literally, and the literal figuratively.
The Bible is a Catholic Book that came from the Catholic Church. We did not always have it. Catholic beliefs are older than the Bible. The Bible is not the entire Word of God, but it is the inspired, written Word of God. How do we know this? Because Christ's authoritative Church told us so. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. We gave it to the world. It does not invalidate the rest of God's unwritten Word.
Why don't you research how the catholic doctrine changed? All the churches had a unified belief, until each one started changing.
For example, 257 AD is when the 'Sprinkle Baptism' was started for Adults instead of immersion only IF the adult was really sick, but was largely rejected. 753 AD it was accepted for the sick. In the Council of Ravenna, 1311 AD, 'Sprinkle Baptism' was accepted for everyone, and immersion was ended.
@WorkingCatholic Re: It's comical that you (curveball) take the figurative literally, and the literal figuratively. That's why you need the Church.
Amen to that amigo. I have heard many Protestants tell me that scriptures are easy to understand. They were not meant to be confusing according to them.
How many people today disagree with what scriptures tell us? Are there even 2 people on Earth who agree with each other on everything?
Amen to him? lol....seriously look at your belief. Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture. Oh yeah, you cannot.
I'm wrong in my knowledge of Communion? No, I'm not. I'm not the one that thinks the symbolic Body and Blood of Jesus because literal flesh and blood.
@Curveball "Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture. Oh yeah, you cannot."
That is easy. However, you will not accept it, because you are a heretic.
Literal--When Jesus said we must eat His flesh to have eternal life
Figurative--"Call no man father."
There it is. Told you you wouldn't like it. Remember though, not only is yours an incorrect, minority opinion; your opinion is only 500 yrs old.
Look at how backwards your thinking is. Communion is symbolic, not literal. If it is literal, I challenge you to get testing down on the BREAD and WINE and see they are not literally FLESH and BLOOD.
Jesus very plainly said 'Call no one on earth Father' and you say it is figurative? How so?
Will you say it is fine to call the male parent Father? Or will you say Jesus just meant not to call anyone but God Father in a religious sense? Is 'Holy Father' a religious sense?
If Cummunion becomes literal flash and blood, then if analyzed, it will have dna, etc. That is LITERAL flesh and blood. You know that doesn't happen.
Call no man father is not figurative even if you believed it only meant in religious terms, because you call the Pope 'Holy Father' which is what Christ called God.
Minority? You think I care? No one believed Noah.....and everyone who didn't believe him died.
@Curveball Re: Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture.
A graven image is an idol that one worships as God. That is not what the Catholic church does. The RCC has the 2nd commandment contained in the 1st. Read the Catechism, you will see that it is there. You spread lies about the RCC and worse you do it on purpose.
You twist scripture to mean what you want them to mean.
No, you need to look at how the word 'Idol' is defined. And God said, ""Do NOT Make for yourself no graven image. Make nothing in the likeness of ANYTHING in heaven or on earth"
What part of that don't you get?
God continues to say, Do not bow down to them or worship them. Don't bow down to them......what part of that don't you understand?
Don't make them, don't pray to them, don't bow to them, don't worship them.....yet you still argue?
@Curveball Re: you need to look at how the word 'Idol' is defined
No you do.
Calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! (Ex. 25:18–20, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ezekiel 41:17–18).
The difference you seem to miss is, God said not to. Now if God told YOU to make one personally, that would over ride His rule not to make them, wouldn't it?
What was always made? Cherubim. Is the Catholic church making Cherubim or Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc?
Yeah, that is what I thought. God NEVER commanded anyone to make Idols of Christ, or Mary, Or Saints.
@Curveball Re: God NEVER commanded anyone to make Idols of Christ, or Mary, Or Saints. So it IS IDOLATRY.
You really are a DOPE!
Keep preaching like you are God. Eat all the bread and wine you want but it will not save you. keep praying to your bible, it might help save you too.
@Curveball Re: Do not bow down to them or worship themNo you do.
Anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry. A Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
Bowing to worship the statue is idolatry. Catholics do not do worship idols.
It said don't bow to them either, but you do. Now explain how kissing a statue isn't idolatry. Explain how the Pope kissing a the Muslim 'holy book' is what a Christian should be doing.
Sorry my replies are slowing....I'm debating a Muslim as well as you. And you're both losing.
@Curveball Re: Don't make them, don't pray to them, don't bow to them, don't worship them.....yet you still argue?
God commanded the making of religious idols many times in scriptures and you say do not make them at all. The Early Church Fathers used them, God commanded the making of them for religious purposes and you profess that is untrue.
The word that defines you is Heritic. That is not name calling, it is a fact.
@Curveball Re: I'm not the one that thinks the symbolic Body and Blood of Jesus because literal flesh and blood.
Not only do you twist scritpure but you ignore what the RCC really teaches. I already told you why you are wrong for saying this and you continue to ignored it. That is nothing more than hatred just for the truth. To ignore the the truth is separation from Christ.
Christ is present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist. You twist it to mean something else.
If the Eucharist is only a symbol, then you do not believe John 6:53 and thus you have no life in you.
Catholics believe that consuming Christ while being concious of sin is a violation of 1 Cor. 11:27–28. You believe that consuming bread and wine can take the place of Christ.
Bread and wine will not save you but if you wish to continue believing it, then by all means; I cannot prevent you from committing spiritual suicide.
You claim that the RCC believes the bread and wine are flesh and blood as if they took it from an animal or a person like a cannible would. How deluded can you possibly be? Satan has warped your brain you goof ball.
Listen to what you are being told and quit listening to Satan, you heritic.
Christ is literally present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine as he says in scripture. Stop twisting this to mean what Satan claims.
And you don't call the Catholic church names? Please. I find your insults of Christ and his Church very distasteful and un-christian. If you are offended by the my use of dope then I will try not to call you that again provided you stop being such a vocal Heritic.
I will respect your opinion but not your self proclaimed authority. Demonstrate that you are a faithful Christian instead of one who demands, with authority, that everyone believe him.
Where did I call you or the Catholic church a name? The bible says to teach and rebuke. Though unlike you, I do not attack with person insults, like 'idiot' and 'heretic' , etc.
Just because the bible said it was a doctrine of demons to teach to abstain from marriage, and to abstain from certain foods, and the catholic church has done both doesn't mean I'm calling the Catholic church a teaching of demons. The bible said it, not me. I just showed you where it says it.
@Curveball Re: Communion does NOT become LITERAL flesh and blood. That is all you had to say.
I have said it is not like flesh and blood such as you suggest on many occations. I have maintained that Christ is truely present in the form of Bread and Wine.
You are the one saying the RCC teaches that the Eucharist is Literally flesh and blood.
Are you trying to now say that is not what you meant?
You are lost because your entire religion is based on misinterpretations of a Catholic Book, A Book which represents only a portion of God's word and never claims to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, the Bible itself defers to tradition and the Church.
Sola Scriptura is simply silly, non-Biblical, man-made, and self-contradictory. The notion that Christian beliefs needed to be found in the Bible is an idea limited to Protestants over the past 500 years.
Yeah, keep babbling to try to justify your Idolatry that you KNOW you commit.
I guess that is why the catholic bible changed the 2nd commandment for so long. Does yours say "Make for yourself no graven image. Make nothing in the likeness of ANYTHING in heaven or on earth", etc....?
And you are seriously joking....you're claiming the bible is 2nd to the church, when the rules of the church are made by men. The Bible is the word of God, the church is the words of men.
@Curveball "keep babbling to try to justify your Idolatry"
Like most anti-Catholics, you simply know very little about what we REALLY do and believe. Do you really think that the presence of statures or stained glass windows constitutes idolatry? Are you so ignorant to think that Catholics actually worship objects? Have you ever heard a Catholic admit to such a thing? We are proud of our beliefs. We'll tell you what we believe in. Idolatry is a sin and is not present in the Catholic Church.
A statue, no matter who it is supposed to be, is a Graven image. You're going to deny this? That shows how far from the truth you are.
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." - God
Do not make a graven image not even the likeness of something in heaven or on earth.
@Curveball "A statue, no matter who it is supposed to be, is a Graven image. You're going to deny this? That shows how far from the truth you are."
Oh, really. The Ten Commandments are first listed in Ex 20. Just 5 chapters later (Ex 25:18), God commands Moses to make two cherubim of beaten gold as part of the Ark of the covenant. Is this a violation of the first commandment (or second for most fallen away Christians)?
I've noticed many Protestant Churches with nativity scenes. Idolaters?
lol....I love how you make it out like God and Jesus cannot do whatever they want. Or if they do something, but then tell us not to do them, that we are then free to do them, because God or Jesus doing them makes void their commandments to NOT DO THEM.
Quit running from the topic. The Catholic church does exactly what God said not to do. Admit it.
And yes, a nativity scene would be compromised of Idols.
But Catholics bow to Idols, kiss the feet of them, pray to them, etc
@Curveball "The Catholic church does exactly what God said not to do. Admit it."
Why would I admit it? It isn't true. You've only proven that you are in no position to understand "what God said." (Literal vs. figurative) I told you that you wouldn't get it. So I'm not surprised.
The Catholic Church is the only Church that does follow the Word of God.
Your and idiot, and you don't know what you're talking about. Admit it.
@Curveball Part 1 "you're claiming the bible is 2nd to the church"
No, I'm saying that the Bible itself says that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Christ never told anyone to write anything. If He had, wouldn't His disciples have begun writing immediately instead of waiting many years after His resurrection? He never promised us a Book. He did, however, promise us an authoritative Church which He instituted Himself.
Yeah, the church was at one time. Not your chruch, THE church. If it was the RCC church, it would not have exchanged truth for made made lies.
It's really funny you mention 1 Timothy....
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach." How many Bishops have a wife?
That is a perfect example of taking something figuratively for literally. You seem to think that taking a wife is required to be a Bishop. You are seriously confused.
Did the apostles take their wives with them when they followed Christ? Did Jesus say that they should leave their families to follow him? Probably not in your bible. But then again, you have taken the Catholic bible and made your own to suit your desires.
You cannot even follow a simple conversation. Did the bible give qualifications of a Bishop? Yes. Did it say that to be a Bishop, you MUST have one wife?
Now explain to me when the word MUST is ever meant as an idea or optional qualifier.
@Curveball Re: Now explain to me when the word MUST is ever meant as an idea or optional qualifier.
Explain to me why you have such a problem with a Catholic Priest or Bishop not having a wife. You make it sound like that is proof for you that the RCC is not the church Christ established.
That is a narrow view of salvation. The church fathers did not take wives. The apostles left their wives to follow Christ. How can one be devoted to Christ and his people if they worry about faimily?
I ask the question again.....did the bible give qualifications to be a Bishop? Yes. Do the Catholic bishops qualify? No. Is that too complicated for you?
MUST have a wife is not an idea or option....it said MUST.
@cburton103 Thank you, that's helpful. But doesn't it make sense that if the Church is the body of Christ, then the visibile structure is Christ? The Word and Sacraments? Church leaders are important to maintain order, but I think it's clear that they are only visible signs because they are called to preach the Word, etc! So it's about Christ, not a hierarchy. I believe that non-Lutherans can be perfectly part of Christ's body through faith, not affiliation with a church. What do you think?
thatonelutheran 1 week ago
Ephesians 2:8, for example, is pretty clear: justification is "not your own doing."
James 2:24? First we should figure out what James means when he says "justified." A valid definition in this context is "shown to have faith." This is what James is talking about, as he says, "I will show you my faith by my works." So James is right on! One is shown to have faith by works. If you want to be right before God by works, good luck. James 2:10 says that if you sin once, you break the whole law.
thatonelutheran 2 weeks ago
Understanding of what Jesus did on the cross and coming to Jesus by faith in that His blood covered your sin is the first step to Faith. Then once the HS enters a person, they will start to act like Jesus and holy, God motivated behaviors, work will come about. Not Protestant or Catholic but catholic - one faith. NO Faith, NO works = not a christian. Following Christ and works will come about. Period
MRGV7373 2 months ago
A Protestant may not be able to answer your question but a Bible believer sure can!
Who is the book of James written to?
It's obvious James is talking about OT salvation and not Church Age salvation. Abraham and Rahab (v25) were justified by FAITH + WORKS just as the Jews will be in the Tribulation.
Romans was written to YOU!
But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that JUSTIFIETH the ungodly, his FAITH is counted for righteousness Rom 4:5
There's YOUR faith ALONE!
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 Are you suggesting that James, which was written in what you call the "Church Age", was written to people from generations before? This seems a bit strange...
Even if you were correct here, you'd still have to deal with Rom 2:6-8, Mt 19:16-24, etc.
In your example from Romans, Paul is talking about works of the law, just as he is in other places (Rom 3:20, 28 - directly before your example.)
Compare what Rom 4 and James 2 say about Abraham. Clearly, Paul is talking about the law.
cburton103 2 months ago in playlist More videos from CrimsonCatholic
@cburton103 "...to the 12 TRIBES" Jas 1:1.
James was written before The "RC" Council at Jerusalem where "pope" Peter declared ex-cathedra: "We believe that through GRACE [no mention of works, baptism, sacraments] of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved" Acts 15:11
Mt 19:16-24 is PRECRUCIFIXION OT salvation by faith + works
Rom 2:6-8 is talking about OT salvation of sinners without Scripture according to conscience not NT salvation. I presume you are not a Jew but a Gentile
drbible1611 2 months ago
@cburton103 Rom 3:20, 28 confirms that NT salvation is without the deeds of the law ie works. Justification is NOW by faith ONLY!
You need to rightly divide and compare Scripture with Scripture.
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 Do you really claim that what Jesus taught about justification has no bearing on believers today? That seems like quite a strange claim - to say that what our savior taught does not apply to us.
Also, what makes you think that Romans 2 is speaking about "OT salvation" and Romans 3 is talking about "NT salvation"? I just read Romans 1-3 to try and see what made the supposed delineation, but I could find none.
It seems the delineation was presupposed by you because of your theology.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103 What exactly did Jesus teach about justification? According to my Bible Jesus never even used the word justification.
Did Jesus mention water Baptism in Mt 19:16-24 as being essential for cleansing from original sin and a requirement for everlasting life?
What is your understanding/definition of the gospel that Christians are to preach today?
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 Jesus doesn't have to use the word "justification" to talk about it, so please don't be unnecessarily difficult. Jesus does tell us how to have everlasting life, see the kingdom of God, etc. This includes being justified.
Jesus did say "follow me" in Mt 19:21. This is an instruction to follow all that he teaches, and Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5 that Baptism is necessary.
The gospel is the good news of God's mercy and love revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103 Where in Mt 19 did Jesus mention His death, resurrection, BAPTISM & SACRAMENTS as requirements for salvation-all He said was KEEP the COMMANDMENTS (Mosaic Law)?
Mt 19:21 "follow me"=Mt 9:9 Matthew got up and followed Him!
Where in John 3 did Jesus mention His death for sins, resurrection & KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS?
You are to "follow ALL that Jesus teaches"? How about Mt 5:38-42? Do you follow Him here to the letter? Be honest now (9th Commandment).
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 You never answered this: What makes you think that Romans 2 is speaking about "OT salvation" and Romans 3 is talking about "NT salvation"? I read Romans 1-3 but I could find no delineation.
I'm not sure why you're acting like everything Jesus wants us to believe has to be in one place. Jesus is the Word, and he speaks to us through the whole Bible (through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, of course).
Mt 5:38-42 Jesus is teaching a point using hyperbole. We don't follow to a letter.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103 Perhaps you can find no delineation because: "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...neither can he KNOW them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned" 1 Cor 2 :14
Read Acts 10:2 & 35 onward. Precrucifixion Cornelius would have attained salvation by Rom 2:6-7. Post crucifixion he couldn't obtain eternal life by his good works/fear of God he needed to believe in Jesus Christ. Ditto eunuch in Acts 8.
Where is Baptism & sacraments in Mt 19?
What about John 3?
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 Wouldn't it be easier (and more Christlike) to point out the delineation than to attempt to insult me?
Once you answer my question, I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103 How come you can't see it then? Either you cannot read or 1 Cor 2:14 applies???
I thought I did answer your question the Biblical way (comparing Scripture w/ Scripture 1 Cor 2:13) by pointing you to Acts 8 & 10. Did you read it?
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 I actually just read through Acts 8 and 10 several days ago, so they're still quite fresh in my mind. I'm asking you to address in Romans 1-3 where you believe Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, makes a delineation between types of salvation. I'm limiting your answer to these three chapters, because that's what you made the argument with. 1 Cor 2:13-14 aren't talking about the same thing as Romans 1-3. The quotes from Acts also have very different contexts. Use Romans 1-3.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
For not the hearers of the law are JUST before God, but the DOERS of the LAW shall be JUSTIFIED. Rom 2:13
Therefore by the DEEDS of the LAW there shall NO FLESH be JUSTIFIED in his sight Rom 3:20
Transition from OT salvation to NT salvation.
Book of Acts is a transition from law to grace!
I don't know how much clearer it can be?
1 Cor 2:13 explains how to interpret the Bible ie Scripture w/Scripture. Paul's epistles are clear that salvation is by grace through faith ALONE
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 Interesting point. I'm not so sure that Paul is only talking about the Law of Moses here though, because he talks about how the Law is written on the hearts of Gentiles too. It makes much more sense that Paul is talking about the moral law here, and the Mosaic Law in other places. It seems he is showing a transition, like you say, but a transition from the Mosaic Law to the Law of faith/grace. At the end of chap 3, Paul says he's not getting rid of this Law. Your thoughts on this?
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103 I think you are beginning to see it. The Mosaic law (for the Jews) consisted of some 600 separate statutes moral, ceremonial & civil. Clearly a Gentile could not be held accountable for the latter two unless he became a Jew, however, his conscience bears witness to the moral law & prior to the crucifixion the Gentile would be judged according to his works. After the crucifixion works play no part in attaining or maintaining eternal life-it is a FREE GIFT Eph 2:8-9 Titus 3:5.
drbible1611 2 months ago
@drbible1611 I understand what the Mosaic Law is. I also understand that after Christ, the Mosaic Law has no power. I believe that it is grace that saves us, and that we receive this grace by responding to God's call with a complete faith, which is composed of faith working through love. This is the understanding that the Church that Christ founded has had for 2000 years, and I have no intention of leaving it. How would you address the absence of justification by faith alone in the early Church?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 Of course it has power. The moral law condemns an unsaved person. It is a schoolmaster which points the sinner to Christ that he may be justified by faith Gal 3:24.
No, your salvation is not attained by grace through faith-it is thro' the sacraments of your Church ie WORKS SALVATION!
What you do with the light God gives you is between you and Him.
The doctrines of the early Church are found in Rom thro Phil and NOT the Church of Rome. Read Eph 2:8-9 & Titus 3:5- NO SACRAMENTS!
drbible1611 1 month ago
@drbible1611 What do you mean by "works salvation"? If you believe that Sacraments have no part in our salvation, then what do you do with 1 Peter 3:21? "baptism... now saves you" From this verse (and others), it seems quite clear that Baptism certainly plays a role in our salvation. For a couple other examples, look at Acts 2:38 and John 3:3-5.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 OK I'll take the bait.
Is H20 Baptism ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for salvation? According to Catholic dogma it is.
Therefore an unbaptized Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, and a Heretic like myself who was baptized into the Catholic faith but now willfully rejects not just one but most Catholic dogmas is damned to Hell.
I presume you believe "OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SALVATION?
drbible1611 1 month ago
@drbible1611 Your understanding of the Catholic belief on Baptism lacks necessary nuances. He who directs his will to serving God to the best of his ability could fall under the baptism of desire, and a martyr could fall under the baptism of blood category.
I do believe that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Church is the Body of Christ - its visible structure is the Catholic Church, but there can be some who are outside of the CC but still (imperfectly) members of the Church.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 I think it is you who does not understand the teaching of your own Church.
Jesus Christ was very clear when He said: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God.
No exceptions are mentioned.
Read my pm
drbible1611 1 month ago
@drbible1611 There are clearly some exceptions, e.g. the thief on the cross. But Christ's point in John 3 is to make a distinction between the flesh and the Spirit. It IS necessary to be born anew of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Baptism happens to be a very key place where this happens. Baptism identifies us with God's family; Christ puts His name on us, so to speak. Which is a pretty cool and important thing.
thatonelutheran 1 week ago
@cburton103 What is "the Church" that you speak of?
I would contend that "the Church" is not what bears the name "CC" or claims submission to the Roman Pontiff, but that which preaches the pure Gospel and properly administers the Sacraments. In this sense you are right: there is no salvation outside "the Church." But that is because "the Church" is the only thing that has God's saving Word, and that is why there is no salvation outside of it.
thatonelutheran 1 week ago
@thatonelutheran The Church is the body of Christ. Those who are baptized into this body can hope for salvation. Now, I think it's clear from the understanding of the Early Church Fathers (and from the NT) that this Church has a visible structure of deacons, priests (presbyters) and bishops. This visible structure has continued through the ages via apostolic succession in the CC.
Non-Catholic Christians may be imperfectly part of this body, but Christ desires that we would all be perfectly one.
cburton103 1 week ago
@drbible1611 And no, I can say nothing on the state of your soul or anyone else's, so I don't believe you're damned to Hell. That judgment is God's alone. I believe this falls squarely under this verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
Please continue on with the baptism/salvation conversation. I thought it was important to include this, but I don't want to derail our conversation with a side comment such as this.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 You are quoting this verse out of context. Christ is talking about hypocritical judgment!
drbible1611 1 month ago
@drbible1611 I am a Lutheran and I also reject many Catholic dogmas. But Catholicism does have a good sense of the importance of the Sacraments. Granted, I believe they have 5 too many. But the biblical ones are very important. Baptism clearly plays a role in salvation according to Scripture. "He who believes and is Baptized will be saved." Baptism is very instrumental in creating saving faith, by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Sacraments are ways that Christ comes to us today!
thatonelutheran 1 week ago
Correction to previous post, should have read, "burn us at the stake."
sheepfax 2 months ago
The thief on the cross moved his jaw up and down to take a public stand with Jesus by calling him Lord and saying, "remember me when you come into your kingdom." There's your work buddy, and I can go on answering you correctly, so don't be saying we can't answer, unless of course you want to torture us like you did right up to the 16th century and burn at the stake.
sheepfax 2 months ago
@sheepfax Who do you mean by "us"?
cburton103 2 months ago in playlist More videos from CrimsonCatholic
This is why I left the catholic faith, because they fail to keep God first in their lives and they fail to understand what the Bible actually says and can only understand what their heads can wrap around. May God present the truth of his word to you in a congregation of lies. God Bless you. I will be praying for you.
90ACG 5 months ago
2 Timothy 1:9 "Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began." So if what you are saying is true, then this means the bible contradicts itself because it clearly says not because of our works. We are saved through grace alone by the Father through faith alone. Isaiah 64:6 States that any of our "good deeds" that we present are like filthy rags (dirty tampons) to the Lord.
90ACG 5 months ago
@90ACG - yes we know that works of man are filthy rags. But how about God working in and through us (eph 3:20-21) producing 30, 60, or 100 fold. You call the work of God in and through us filthy rags???? I think not.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic Ahh HAA! there we GO! I was stating that OUR deeds are really not good, but those THROUGH the Holy Spirit is the only one that produces good works (Galatians 5:22). I never stated in my comment that God's deeds were bad for he is the ONLY ONE capable of good and righteous things. Now let me ask you a question my friend. Did Faith of the lord or works for the lord come first?
90ACG 4 months ago
@imromancatholic Now back to the main issue of this video. How are we saved by works and faith when Titus 3:5-7 states so clearly "5He saved us, not because of works done by US in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the HOLY SPIRIT, 6 Whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." and many more verses throughout the NT.
90ACG 4 months ago
@90ACG - good works are excercise to the spiritual body like running or lifting weights is excercise to the physical body. The Eucharist being the food for the soul as bread is food for our physical bodies. Without proper diet and excercise the spiritual body will become weak just like the physical body.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic ...(cont). If we are to say that it is required, then we deny the salvation of the criminal of the cross, hence rejecting Jesus' statement that he was saved (Luke 23:43). Furthermore, if it is required for salvation, don't you think Paul would have put a much higher emphasis on its importance? Paul actually says he isn't calld to baptism, but to preach the word of truth so his hearers could believe in the gospel and live (1 Corinthians 1:13-17).
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago in playlist Apologetics
@YeshuaisLord100 - First of all baptism was not commanded for the world until the great commission after the resurrection in Matt 28-Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them....The baptism prior to that was the baptism of John which did not confer the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was not a requirement for the thief. Secondly do you say then that Peter overemphasized baptism? "Baptism now SAVES YOU" in 1 Peter? Also see acts 2:38 where Peter says baptism is for everyone.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic So everyone after the criminal is required to be baptized? Makes no sense and there is no scriptural support for that at all. That would make john's baptisms completely pointless, even though in reality his baptism was a SYMBOL for people to turn and repent of their sins. Regarding your reference to first Peter, "eight in all, were saved through water, and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you." Baptism is a symbol of belief (romans 6:3-5, colossians 2:12).
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - Why do you feel the need to change the word symbol and baptism around. It doesn't say that baptism is the symbol. READ CAREFULLY. The symbol is the saving of the people on the ark through the flood. Though it is true the actions of baptism, the water for instance is symbolic of what happens. An outward sign of an inward grace.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic I am aware of what the verse says but this doesn't disprove what I am saying; baptism is symbolic of our union with Christ. Read Acts Chapter 10- Cornelius and his relatives had received the Holy Spirit and believed before they were baptized. So are you saying that the Holy Spirit living inside you is not enough to save?
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - I am quite familiar with Acts 10. Cornelius is an exception to the rule of which God can make as he pleases. John the baptist recieved the Holy Spirit in his mothers womb. Do you claim that everyone can recieve the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb? Show me who else recived the HS BEFORE baptism. Peter says clearly in Acts 2:38 that it happens with baptism. He says clearly in 1 Pet 3 Baptism NOW saves you. Everyone with the Holy Spirit living inside them is saved.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic You see, this is the problem here. You want to justify your position by reading into the text and not wanting to believe what scripture is clearly teaching. You can't just say Cornelius is an exemption to the rule; it doesn't say that anywhere in scripture-you have to read into the text to get to that conclusion. Yes, baptism saves you, because its symbolic of what Christ did on the cross. You ask for more people who recieved the Spirit before baptism?...(cont.)
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - Jesus says in Mark 16 "believe and be baptized and you will be saved". He does not say "believe and be saved then get baptized". I have even known protestants who want this passage removed from scripture.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic ...(cont.)The eunuch in Acts 8 and the jailer in Acts 16:25-33. The jailer asked Paul "what he must do to be saved" and Paul responded, "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." There is NOTHING about baptism there, nor does it say anything about baptism being necessarily in Romans 10:9 . Paul, after he had accepted the Lord, sent him to be baptized. Those protestants prob. want that scripture removed because they aren't in the original manuscripts...(cont.)
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - So Paul contradicts Jesus who says "believe and be baptized an you will be saved". No one who believes gets baptized. There is no contradiction. It's not Jesus or Paul. And what do Paul and the jailor do IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. They baptize the jailor and his family. Why not wait around? Because baptism is salvific, the jailor has let prisoners escape and he is in danger of death. We don't have original manuscripts. We have old manuscripts but they aren't orig.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
You say there is nothing about baptism with the Eunuch. Yet oddly enough after phillip has preached to him he says baptize me now. How odd if Phillip never mentioned baptism. We don't have all that Phillip said do we. You say belief is enough? Belief in what? Peter preached baptism in Acts 2:38. Everybody got baptized. He said it conferred the holy spirit for those who believe. Now you don't think receiving the Holy Spirit saves?
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100
We don't have all the Paul preached in Acts d 16 but it clearly included baptism because the jailor got baptized. Seems likely he must have mentioned it before Paul mentioned about belief because there is no inidcation that he did it after. So quite clearly part of what he was to believe in was BAPTISM!!! Clearly Phillip did say something about baptism.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic ...(cont.) at any rate, those scriptures don't contradict the rest of scripture, which teaches that baptism is not a requirement for salvation
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - I simply don't know how you can get around "baptism NOW SAVES YOU". It says what it says. You have no passage that says that one does not have to be baptized and Christ commands that the world be baptized in Matt 28 - The great commission. It is only in your head that baptism is not neccessary for salvation and so you twist the scriptures to fit your thinking.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic I simply don't see how you can get around all the examples I provided in Acts of people that were saved BEFORE they were baptized. You never answered to any of the these scriptures, instead you just went back to that one verse which you take out of context. No, you and your church is the one that twists scripture. It wasn't until Augustine (4th century ad) that this idea of baptismal regeneration was popularized.
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - I just saw your posts speaking about the jailor and the Eunuch and responded. What I asked you for were examples where the Holy Spirit was given BEFORE baptism. You provided no such passages. You seem to want to use the bible as if it contains all the words spoken in every meeting by everyone. But John clearly says at the end of his Gospel that it does not. It is clear that Philip DID speak about acts because the Eunuch said why don't you baptize me now. Same with jailr
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic those examples were of people who received the Holy Spirit before baptism. At first you say Cornelius is an exception to the rule(which is ridiculous) and ignore that the jailer and his household and the eunuch received the Holy Spirit, then were baptized. I said Paul said nothing to the eunuch and baptism being a requirement for salvation; don't put words in my mouth. I am aware that in both instances, they were baptized; after believing and receiving the Spirit...(cont.)
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@imromancatholic ...(cont.) we could keep arguing about this, but the bottomline is that the Paul clearly didnt put emphasis it in 1 Corinthians 1, and you have major holes in your idea that Cornelius is just an "exception" to the rule, as well as the fact of the thief on the cross and the other examples in Acts. Baptism is important, because its about confession of sins and public profession of becoming Christian; its just not a requirement.
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - The holes are not mine. Again it is quite clear that Phillip preached baptism to the Enuch as a part of the good news. Isn't it the good news that saves?
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 Let's examine Acts 8.
"[35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
[36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" " Now where did the Enuch get the idea that he should be baptized? Hmmmm. It must be included in the phrase "the good news of Jesus". Pretty clear.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - and again yes baptism is symbolic of many things. But it is more, an outward sign of an inward grace.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 Was circumcision pointless? No, it pointed toward greater things to come just as John's baptism did and I am quite sure that God recognized the repentence of those who went through John's baptism. But it is clear from Acts 20 that it was not the same as baptism after the resurrection.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - as a point of clarification the saving of the people in the ark is a symbol of baptism. The "baptism that NOW SAVES YOU.". Now saves you goes with baptism and the salvation of those in the ark from the flood goes with symbol.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@YeshuaisLord100 - Your argument is weak. Sorry. Paul is dealing with the issue of division not whether or not one should be baptized. He planted seeds therefore he did not get alot of converts. They came later when others "watered". For instance the thessalonians in acts 17 rejected him but then later we know that there was a large community there. Paul would most certainly have baptized if People wanted it. Were the Apostles wrong to baptize 7000 in the first few days of Christianity.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic your argument is weak. Sorry. There is no scriptural support for what you are saying, nor is there any historical context. Paul and the other apostles had plenty of converts and if baptism was a required function Paul would have dealt with it as such, but he doesn't. Baptism is important-it was taught by Jesus and the early church (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:41), but nowhere does it say it is required for salvation...(cont.)
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
Comment removed
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago
@90ACG - The passage is pretty clear. We don't "get saved" by works. One could theoretically build a skyscraper to the heavens and fill it with poor and feed them. If he is not regenerate, i.e. BAPTIZED, he would go to hell. The passage is talking about baptism. However once baptized we must bear fruit. That is clear from Rom 2:4-8, Matt 25 sheep and goates, John 15, etc. etc.. You must believe Once Saved Always saved which forces you in to the false theology that denies these passages.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
@imromancatholic Scripture is very clear throughout the old and new testaments that a believer is saved by grace through faith (Habakkuk 2:2-4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16; 3:11). If we are to accept the catholic position that man is justified by faith and works then we are bringing Christianity down to level of religion, because all religion is works based; accept for true orthodox Christianity. Regarding baptism...(cont.)
YeshuaisLord100 4 months ago in playlist Apologetics
@90ACG - See my posts below in response to yours.
imromancatholic 4 months ago
How can anyone be justified (put right) by faith alone and not by works which are sacrifices? To love and to good to others who may disgust you is what God wants. I am able to go out tonight, get drunk, cause harm to loads of people and then feel ok about it because I believe in Jesus. I don't think so. Life in Christ by baptism is a hard road to follow and it takes works and faith and the Grace of God to get through,
missgreeneyes56 6 months ago
I worded that last comment was poorly worded. I meant to say that good works come from faith.
meandeanmiler 7 months ago
As a christian we preform good works without being told. The verse is saying that if we do not do good works then we have no faith. To say otherwise would contradict multiple other verses in the Bible.
meandeanmiler 7 months ago
@meandeanmiler But, you can have faith without works...see video #1 in this series. Faith can indeed give rise to good works, but it isn't automatic. As James 2:26 says, faith without works, is like the body without the spirit - dead. A body without a spirit is still a body, it's just a dead body. Faith without works is still faith, it's just a dead faith. Works are necessary to complete faith, which James 2 also tells us. The Bible doesn't say faith automatically results in good works.
CrimsonCatholic 7 months ago
@CrimsonCatholic "The Bible doesn't say faith automatically results in good works." Really? So when Christ says that "every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit," what do you think He means? What else can true faith result in, especially if "a healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit," and "every healthy tree bears good fruit"? Think about it. Pray about it. Pax Domini +
thatonelutheran 2 weeks ago
There are "works" and "good works". James speaks of "good works" or "good deeds". "Good" means of God. "works" relate to man as refered to in Eph.
RealJesusforAtheists 9 months ago
@RealJesusforAtheists Your point?
CrimsonCatholic 9 months ago
I love my faith but The way I expressed was horrible.
cathomania 1 year ago
Ignorant Catholic= soon to be Protestant
Educated Protestant = soon to be Catholic
cathomania 1 year ago 12
@cathomania Your statement is just an arrogant statement made out of religious pride. The pride of which the pharisees whom Jesus stood up against and revealed all of their flaws. I caution you to turn away from such religious pride. I use to be catholic and by reading my bible and through studying scripture I found deep biblical holes within the catholic church that so many are blinded by arrogance and pride rather than humbling yourselves. I advise you to turn back to Jesus in your faith.
90ACG 4 months ago
Faith and works are both needed for salvation.
yellowballpoets 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your understanding of scripture seems to be very weak, as is the understanding of anyone who claims Faith or Works alone would save you.
If you have no faith, you're doomed.
If you have no works, your faith is wasted.
If not for the Grace of God, your faith and works, no matter how strong or numerous, would amount to nothing.
Is that too difficult a concept?
yellowballpoets 1 year ago
"a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.2:16). Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
decapodproductions 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Translation wrong, Gal.2:16 says "Faith of Jesus Christ" A genitive. Rom.10:9 says to believe from the heart! God must first give us a new heart to believe. Thats why Gal.5:22 says faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Abraham Believed God because God had given him a new heart. God saved him. His justification came only by the work of Christ. We can only be made righteous by Christ dying for us to free us from the Law which demands death. The wages of sin is DEATH! Rom.6:23
decapodproductions 11 months ago
I see he is using the RSVce bible, the infalable word of God to the English speaking peoples.
AtomicMonster559 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtomicMonster559 Re: I see he is using the RSVce bible, the infalable word of God to the English speaking peoples.
Who is using RSVce bible? Why do you mention it? Just trying to understand your post.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@lchiddle Re: I haven't said anything about whether I believe we have a freewill or not.
I know you haven't. Other Protestants have told me that we have no free will because God chooses everything for us. Directly linked or not, I think it is a source of disunity in belief.
"It really doesn't matter what the RCC says, if they contradict the Bible they are in error."
Again, true if the RCC is NOT the church established by Christ. Not true if the RCC is that church guided by the HS.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Re: It really doesn't matter what the RCC says - Not true if the RCC is that church guided by the HS.
I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit, from the time of Constantine the RCC have become nothing less then bullies abusing God's name and word to commit atrocious acts.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle Re: I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit, from the time of Constantine the RCC have become nothing less then bullies abusing God's name and word to commit atrocious acts.
Now you are talking about the real debate. This is the discussion that everyone seems to be avoiding and instead discusses passages.
I happen to disagree with you because I do not see any truth to your statement.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@lchiddle Re: I think history clearly shows that the RCC is not guided by the Holy Spirit (2)
To be blunt, I think all Protestants believe the same thing you do and this is the real issue. I think that people hate the Catholic church because they believe that Christ would not build a church that has sinners in charge of it.
I have had evangelicals tell me that all denominations are wrong because they have sinful leaders. That self worth attitude endangers their own souls.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
Ok, I'm watching more of your videos because you're just parroting the same point over and over.
Let me know when you have real questions a Protestant cannot answer.
With no faith, you're doomed.
Faith without Works is wasted Faith.
Faith and Works, no matter how strong or how numerous, are not able to save you. The Grace of God is WHY we get saved. Being faithful and following God's way is the path to be saved....but not WHY you are saved.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "Let me know when you have real questions a Protestant cannot answer."
Okay. Why do Protestants turn their backs on the Word of God and follow beliefs which were made up by men in just the past 500 years?
For instance, name just one Christian prior to Luther who was not taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Find one who was taught "born again" meant anything other than baptism, or believed in Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura. All of these "beliefs" are "make-beliefs."
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Just about every church claims it's origin is the real Church of Christ.
Just like your Church lies and says Peter was the first Pope, when there is no historical evidence to support it outside of Catholic dogma written by Catholics.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. (Rom. 15:15-18)
If Peter was to be the head of anything, the argument in Mark 9:33-36 would never have happened.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Just like your Church lies and says Peter was the first Pope, when there is no historical evidence to support it outside of Catholic dogma written by Catholics.
It is not a lie that Christ gave the keys to his church to Peter. An Atheist would likewise say to you that God does not exist because history shows that everything about God is made up by man. Do you go to Atheists to get your history or the church?
I get my history from the church that has existed for 2000 years.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Well I can use the Bible to disprove your claim that Peter was even in Rome in 67 AD.
Paul is in Rome, and says only Luke was with him. 2 Timothy 4:11.
In fact, of all the writings of Paul in Rome, never once did he even mention Peter. You would think if Peter was a 'Pope', then Mark wouldn't have said only Luke was with him in Rome.
In 2 Timothy 4:16, Pau said no one stood with him. If Peter was there and Pope, then he betrayed and abandoned Paul. Peter wasn't in Rome.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: I can use the Bible to disprove your claim that Peter was even in Rome in 67 AD.
First, it is not my claim.
Second, I can, more than likely, produce a verse that appears to contradict anything you tell me.
Understanding what the bible is really telling us is the real topic, not providing evidence of contradictions.
You are entitled to your opinion but I will not accept your opinions as fact; especially when you say things like "your church lies". That is childish.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
I said your church lies, I didn't say you did. Your church says Peter was the first Pope. I proved that wrong with the bible. It isn't my opinion, the bible said it. I am just showing you the truth in God's word. You believing it or not is on your head, not mine.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: I said your church lies, I didn't say you did.
I did not accuse you of saying I lied, I accused you of saying that I made the claim that Peter was the first Pope.
The evidence you provieded in scripture is proof, it is your belief that it is proof. Scripture tells us we must eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood to have eternal life and most Protestants claim this is metaphorical and not actual.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. Opinions are not proof.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Well obviously Holy Communion is symbolic.
MATTHEW 26:20-30 Jesus clearly says Bread, and 'Fruit of the Vine' meaning wine.
Unleavened bread and wine are symbols of Christs Body and blood. Did Jesus cut his flesh and pass it around to be eaten? Did he catch the blood from that wound in a cup? No.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "Well obviously Holy Communion is symbolic."
Not only is this heretical view in direst opposition to what Jesus said, it is also a minority opinion that was never taught to any Christian until 500 years ago when a man "made it up." If this is not true, please give me the name of just one Christian who was not taught the real presence of Christ prior to Luther.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
You need to read the bible and what it says, and stop acting your opinion to it.
"And as they were eating, Jesus took BREAD, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; THIS is My body.”
Stop adding your opinion. Nowhere in the bible did it say you would eat literal flesh. Jesus said the unleavened BREAD was His body.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "You need to read the bible and what it says, and stop acting your opinion to it."
No, I think you need to read the Bible, if you did not even recognize that I was quoting the Bible, not voicing an opinion.
You--"Nowhere in the bible did it say you would eat literal flesh."
Oh really? What does Jn 6:51 say? How 'bout Jn 6:53? Jn 6:54? 6:55? 6:57? How many times does He have to repeat Himself?
Would you have called Jesus a liar to His face if you were in Capernaum that day?
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
What did Yeshua say was His body and blood at the last Supper? Unleavened Bread and Wine.
Let me know when that sinks in.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "What did Yeshua say was His body and blood at the last Supper? Unleavened Bread and Wine."
You need to take your own advice about reading the Bible. It does not say what you wrote. Jesus did not say His Body was the Bread. He said the Bread was His Body. And when He said it; it happened. The bread became the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread--just as it does every day from east to west in fulfillment of the prophecy of Mal 1:11.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
*sigh*
MATTHEW 26:21 - "And as they were eating, Jesus took BREAD, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.”
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Yes, now you've got it. Jesus said the bread was His Body. He did not say His Body was bread.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
That is why it is Symbolic. Like the bread He blessed and passed out saying it was His body, and the fruit of the vine was his blood.... that is what Communion is. Being Symbolic, as it was when Jesus said it Himself. Done as a Symbolic way of remembering Him.
That does not mean the bread turns into flesh, and wine turns to blood literally.
They are Symbolic, not literal.
If your church teaches you it's literal, then ask to get the wine like YOU SHOULD BE DOING.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball please contrast Jn 6:51-58 where Jesus speaks literally with John 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 where He speaks of food symbolically. When the disciples think he is talking about real food, Jesus is quick to show them in plain language that he was speaking figuratively. But in John 6:66, Jesus’ disciples leave him and he makes no attempt to soften his words. He meant exactly what he said.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
I'm seriously in awe that you cannot grasp something so simple. Jesus clearly said it was break and wine, and said "DO THIS in remembrance of Me." Do this? What would 'this' have been? Exactly what he was doing. Passing out unleavened bread as His body, and Wine as his blood.
Now answer my question....Jesus charged us with doing it, the bread and wine....why do you only get to do one and not the wine? Why not? Jesus said do it, and you don't.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "Do this? What would 'this' have been? "
"This" would have been changing the bread and wine into His Literal Body and Blood and consuming it.
"why do you only get to do one and not the wine?"
I do. I already answered this below.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Tell me what Church you attend and where it is. I'll see for myself if it does Communion with Bread and wine.
I hope you do not lie.
But I'm glad you came around on the fact that bread doesn't literally become flesh, and wine doesn't literally become blood. It's symbolic, not literal.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "Tell me what Church you attend"
I attend a Roman Catholic Church in Brentwood, TN, But I have received communion under both forms throughout the United States. It is common everywhere.
"I'm glad you came around on the fact that bread doesn't literally become flesh"
Are you stupid or just in denial? Let me spell it out for you: they become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This has been the teaching since the time of the Apostles.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@Curveball As I said before, not only is your heretical opinion in direst opposition to what Jesus said, it is also a minority opinion that was never taught to any Christian until 500 years ago when a man "made it up." If this is not true, please give me the name of just one Christian who was not taught the real presence of Christ prior to Luther.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
So me where Jesus told me to call a man father. Oh yeah, Jesus said not to call anyone father. What do you call priests and the pope again?
Show me where I'm supposed to wear a cross, kiss crosses, bow to crosses, statues of Jesus, Mary, and Saints and bow to them, pray to them, and kiss their feet. Oh yeah, God said that is Idolatry....
Tell me where I'm supposed to pray the rosary. Oh yeah, Jesus said DO NOT do repetitious prayers like heathens do.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "S[h]o[w] me where Jesus told me to call a man father"
How about if I show you where Jesus Himself calls another man father? In Lk 16:24 Jesus speaks of "Father Abraham. In Mt 19:19, He says, "honor your father and mother."
In Mt 23, Jesus is denouncing the Pharisee's and scribes. He is emphasizing that legitimate authority and truth ultimately comes from God.
It's comical that you take the figurative literally, and the literal figuratively.
That's why you need the Church.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
No, Jesus can do whatever He wants. He told us to call NO ONE ON EARTH Father but God.
Matthew 23:9
"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." -Jesus
Deny Jesus and His words all you want. He told you not to do it, didn't He?
Curveball 1 year ago
Comment removed
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@Curveball Part 2
The Bible is a Catholic Book that came from the Catholic Church. We did not always have it. Catholic beliefs are older than the Bible. The Bible is not the entire Word of God, but it is the inspired, written Word of God. How do we know this? Because Christ's authoritative Church told us so. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. We gave it to the world. It does not invalidate the rest of God's unwritten Word.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Why don't you research how the catholic doctrine changed? All the churches had a unified belief, until each one started changing.
For example, 257 AD is when the 'Sprinkle Baptism' was started for Adults instead of immersion only IF the adult was really sick, but was largely rejected. 753 AD it was accepted for the sick. In the Council of Ravenna, 1311 AD, 'Sprinkle Baptism' was accepted for everyone, and immersion was ended.
Man made changes because 'holy laws' in the RRC.
Curveball 1 year ago
Comment removed
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic Re: It's comical that you (curveball) take the figurative literally, and the literal figuratively. That's why you need the Church.
Amen to that amigo. I have heard many Protestants tell me that scriptures are easy to understand. They were not meant to be confusing according to them.
How many people today disagree with what scriptures tell us? Are there even 2 people on Earth who agree with each other on everything?
Keep up your posts, they are inspiring.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Amen to him? lol....seriously look at your belief. Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture. Oh yeah, you cannot.
I'm wrong in my knowledge of Communion? No, I'm not. I'm not the one that thinks the symbolic Body and Blood of Jesus because literal flesh and blood.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture. Oh yeah, you cannot."
That is easy. However, you will not accept it, because you are a heretic.
Literal--When Jesus said we must eat His flesh to have eternal life
Figurative--"Call no man father."
There it is. Told you you wouldn't like it. Remember though, not only is yours an incorrect, minority opinion; your opinion is only 500 yrs old.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Look at how backwards your thinking is. Communion is symbolic, not literal. If it is literal, I challenge you to get testing down on the BREAD and WINE and see they are not literally FLESH and BLOOD.
Jesus very plainly said 'Call no one on earth Father' and you say it is figurative? How so?
Will you say it is fine to call the male parent Father? Or will you say Jesus just meant not to call anyone but God Father in a religious sense? Is 'Holy Father' a religious sense?
Curveball 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
If Cummunion becomes literal flash and blood, then if analyzed, it will have dna, etc. That is LITERAL flesh and blood. You know that doesn't happen.
Call no man father is not figurative even if you believed it only meant in religious terms, because you call the Pope 'Holy Father' which is what Christ called God.
Minority? You think I care? No one believed Noah.....and everyone who didn't believe him died.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Give one example of where I take the literal figuratively, and the figurative literal that is not backed up 100% by scripture.
A graven image is an idol that one worships as God. That is not what the Catholic church does. The RCC has the 2nd commandment contained in the 1st. Read the Catechism, you will see that it is there. You spread lies about the RCC and worse you do it on purpose.
You twist scripture to mean what you want them to mean.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
No, you need to look at how the word 'Idol' is defined. And God said, ""Do NOT Make for yourself no graven image. Make nothing in the likeness of ANYTHING in heaven or on earth"
What part of that don't you get?
God continues to say, Do not bow down to them or worship them. Don't bow down to them......what part of that don't you understand?
Don't make them, don't pray to them, don't bow to them, don't worship them.....yet you still argue?
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: you need to look at how the word 'Idol' is defined
No you do.
Calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! (Ex. 25:18–20, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ezekiel 41:17–18).
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
The difference you seem to miss is, God said not to. Now if God told YOU to make one personally, that would over ride His rule not to make them, wouldn't it?
What was always made? Cherubim. Is the Catholic church making Cherubim or Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc?
Yeah, that is what I thought. God NEVER commanded anyone to make Idols of Christ, or Mary, Or Saints.
So it IS IDOLATRY.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: God NEVER commanded anyone to make Idols of Christ, or Mary, Or Saints. So it IS IDOLATRY.
You really are a DOPE!
Keep preaching like you are God. Eat all the bread and wine you want but it will not save you. keep praying to your bible, it might help save you too.
Heritic
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
You sure are a poor example of a Christian. I mean, a Catholic, sorry.
There is a lot of anger in you, and rudeness. I'll pray for you, that God may show you His truth.
Maybe then your rudeness and anger will fall away from you.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Do not bow down to them or worship themNo you do.
Anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry. A Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
Bowing to worship the statue is idolatry. Catholics do not do worship idols.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
It said don't bow to them either, but you do. Now explain how kissing a statue isn't idolatry. Explain how the Pope kissing a the Muslim 'holy book' is what a Christian should be doing.
Sorry my replies are slowing....I'm debating a Muslim as well as you. And you're both losing.
Curveball 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Curveball Re: explain how kissing a statue isn't idolatry
Explain how kissing a statue isn't veneration, you dope!
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Don't make them, don't pray to them, don't bow to them, don't worship them.....yet you still argue?
God commanded the making of religious idols many times in scriptures and you say do not make them at all. The Early Church Fathers used them, God commanded the making of them for religious purposes and you profess that is untrue.
The word that defines you is Heritic. That is not name calling, it is a fact.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: I'm not the one that thinks the symbolic Body and Blood of Jesus because literal flesh and blood.
Not only do you twist scritpure but you ignore what the RCC really teaches. I already told you why you are wrong for saying this and you continue to ignored it. That is nothing more than hatred just for the truth. To ignore the the truth is separation from Christ.
Christ is present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist. You twist it to mean something else.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: symbolic Body and Blood of Jesus
If the Eucharist is only a symbol, then you do not believe John 6:53 and thus you have no life in you.
Catholics believe that consuming Christ while being concious of sin is a violation of 1 Cor. 11:27–28. You believe that consuming bread and wine can take the place of Christ.
Bread and wine will not save you but if you wish to continue believing it, then by all means; I cannot prevent you from committing spiritual suicide.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: literal flesh and blood
You claim that the RCC believes the bread and wine are flesh and blood as if they took it from an animal or a person like a cannible would. How deluded can you possibly be? Satan has warped your brain you goof ball.
Listen to what you are being told and quit listening to Satan, you heritic.
Christ is literally present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine as he says in scripture. Stop twisting this to mean what Satan claims.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Your arguments continue to fall into name calling. How sad. Is that the best you've got?
And you made my point for me......Communion does NOT become LITERAL flesh and blood. That is all you had to say. lol
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: name calling
And you don't call the Catholic church names? Please. I find your insults of Christ and his Church very distasteful and un-christian. If you are offended by the my use of dope then I will try not to call you that again provided you stop being such a vocal Heritic.
I will respect your opinion but not your self proclaimed authority. Demonstrate that you are a faithful Christian instead of one who demands, with authority, that everyone believe him.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
Where did I call you or the Catholic church a name? The bible says to teach and rebuke. Though unlike you, I do not attack with person insults, like 'idiot' and 'heretic' , etc.
Just because the bible said it was a doctrine of demons to teach to abstain from marriage, and to abstain from certain foods, and the catholic church has done both doesn't mean I'm calling the Catholic church a teaching of demons. The bible said it, not me. I just showed you where it says it.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Communion does NOT become LITERAL flesh and blood. That is all you had to say.
I have said it is not like flesh and blood such as you suggest on many occations. I have maintained that Christ is truely present in the form of Bread and Wine.
You are the one saying the RCC teaches that the Eucharist is Literally flesh and blood.
Are you trying to now say that is not what you meant?
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@Curveball "Show me where ..."
You are lost because your entire religion is based on misinterpretations of a Catholic Book, A Book which represents only a portion of God's word and never claims to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, the Bible itself defers to tradition and the Church.
Sola Scriptura is simply silly, non-Biblical, man-made, and self-contradictory. The notion that Christian beliefs needed to be found in the Bible is an idea limited to Protestants over the past 500 years.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Yeah, keep babbling to try to justify your Idolatry that you KNOW you commit.
I guess that is why the catholic bible changed the 2nd commandment for so long. Does yours say "Make for yourself no graven image. Make nothing in the likeness of ANYTHING in heaven or on earth", etc....?
And you are seriously joking....you're claiming the bible is 2nd to the church, when the rules of the church are made by men. The Bible is the word of God, the church is the words of men.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "keep babbling to try to justify your Idolatry"
Like most anti-Catholics, you simply know very little about what we REALLY do and believe. Do you really think that the presence of statures or stained glass windows constitutes idolatry? Are you so ignorant to think that Catholics actually worship objects? Have you ever heard a Catholic admit to such a thing? We are proud of our beliefs. We'll tell you what we believe in. Idolatry is a sin and is not present in the Catholic Church.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
A statue, no matter who it is supposed to be, is a Graven image. You're going to deny this? That shows how far from the truth you are.
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." - God
Do not make a graven image not even the likeness of something in heaven or on earth.
Lie and say the RCC doesn't.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "A statue, no matter who it is supposed to be, is a Graven image. You're going to deny this? That shows how far from the truth you are."
Oh, really. The Ten Commandments are first listed in Ex 20. Just 5 chapters later (Ex 25:18), God commands Moses to make two cherubim of beaten gold as part of the Ark of the covenant. Is this a violation of the first commandment (or second for most fallen away Christians)?
I've noticed many Protestant Churches with nativity scenes. Idolaters?
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
lol....I love how you make it out like God and Jesus cannot do whatever they want. Or if they do something, but then tell us not to do them, that we are then free to do them, because God or Jesus doing them makes void their commandments to NOT DO THEM.
Quit running from the topic. The Catholic church does exactly what God said not to do. Admit it.
And yes, a nativity scene would be compromised of Idols.
But Catholics bow to Idols, kiss the feet of them, pray to them, etc
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball "The Catholic church does exactly what God said not to do. Admit it."
Why would I admit it? It isn't true. You've only proven that you are in no position to understand "what God said." (Literal vs. figurative) I told you that you wouldn't get it. So I'm not surprised.
The Catholic Church is the only Church that does follow the Word of God.
Your and idiot, and you don't know what you're talking about. Admit it.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@Curveball Part 1 "you're claiming the bible is 2nd to the church"
No, I'm saying that the Bible itself says that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Christ never told anyone to write anything. If He had, wouldn't His disciples have begun writing immediately instead of waiting many years after His resurrection? He never promised us a Book. He did, however, promise us an authoritative Church which He instituted Himself.
WorkingCatholic 1 year ago
@WorkingCatholic
Yeah, the church was at one time. Not your chruch, THE church. If it was the RCC church, it would not have exchanged truth for made made lies.
It's really funny you mention 1 Timothy....
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach." How many Bishops have a wife?
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: How many Bishops have a wife?
That is a perfect example of taking something figuratively for literally. You seem to think that taking a wife is required to be a Bishop. You are seriously confused.
Did the apostles take their wives with them when they followed Christ? Did Jesus say that they should leave their families to follow him? Probably not in your bible. But then again, you have taken the Catholic bible and made your own to suit your desires.
Heritic.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
You cannot even follow a simple conversation. Did the bible give qualifications of a Bishop? Yes. Did it say that to be a Bishop, you MUST have one wife?
Now explain to me when the word MUST is ever meant as an idea or optional qualifier.
Curveball 1 year ago
@Curveball Re: Now explain to me when the word MUST is ever meant as an idea or optional qualifier.
Explain to me why you have such a problem with a Catholic Priest or Bishop not having a wife. You make it sound like that is proof for you that the RCC is not the church Christ established.
That is a narrow view of salvation. The church fathers did not take wives. The apostles left their wives to follow Christ. How can one be devoted to Christ and his people if they worry about faimily?
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever
I ask the question again.....did the bible give qualifications to be a Bishop? Yes. Do the Catholic bishops qualify? No. Is that too complicated for you?
MUST have a wife is not an idea or option....it said MUST.
Curveball 1 year ago