Bottom line...

Scott You just responded with emotions, please search the scriptures and ask God to show you.

 

Go ahead Scott, believe as you want, it doesn't make it right, but I gave you the scriptures you need.

Have a good day

 

Scott, I noticed that you did not offer correct exegesis, or even try to counter anything I said except the assurance part.

It is you who have not dealt with the Scripture.

 

I told you to carefully read Romans 4.

Look at the following verses:

20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,

21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Abraham, who was the example Paul chose to prove salvation by faith alone apart from any kind of work, says the following:

1. he did not waver
2. his faith grew strong
3. he was fully assured of God's promise
4. he was fully assured of God's ability to perform it
5. therefore (based on the above), it was credited (put to his account in full) to him as righteousness (the very righteousness of Christ).

You don't like it, take it up with Paul.

 

Okay, I will play this game, I will sidetrack the issue and follow you here.

1. There is more than one way to understand the passages on falling away, persevering, etc. There is only one way to understand this passage. There can be no debate.

2. It is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away.

3. Because that is what Paul said. He had the authority of God to write it, so I think it is reliable.

4. Why are you arguing on the basis of piety now? Deal with the text first, Scott.

Look, you wanted an answer, I gave it and plenty of Scripture. If you would rather just argue, have at it. I think you should study a bit more though.

 

Gunther just condemned F.F. Bruce to Hell!!!

 

No, they do not agree.

The Bible says: Salvation is not by works

The Catholic Church says: Salvation is not by works and then they redefine the "works" that they say are necessary for salvation and call them "graces" or "sacraments". These, according to their church ARE necessary for salvation. Be careful, they often redefine and misuse terminology to fool people into believing they are scriptural. You will find the word "graces" in catholic doctrine, not in the Bible.

If they truly believed that salvation was not by works then they would be contradicting themselves in these statements:

They do not believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone, they teach that all this and more is necessary for salvation. They just word it differently to fool you, the truth is they are adamant that these works are necessary for salvation and they eternally condemn anyone who dares to disagree!

I would read their official documents more carefully. They do have works that are required for justification.

James didn't preach another gospel. I showed you in context how he was saying his works were produced FROM his faith, not that his works PRODUCED his faith. There is a big difference! Context is everything.

Yes, but they define faith as consisting of many graces that must be preformed in order to receive it. In short, these works are necessary for salvation, so in order to not appear to contradict scripture they "renamed" the works as "graces" and "sacraments." The Bible doesn't teach that grace is given THROUGH these things but that is what the Catholic Chruch teaches.

~Lorelei

 

I've been trying to stay out of this but I feel that I just have to respond to the following:

And this does, indeed, disagree with our Baptist principles. However, we notice that the righteousness has ALREADY been received, so it is not given because of good works. The salvation has already occurred through belief in Christ Jesus. You don't see this as saying a person is saved through works, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice carefully what Canon 24 says – the righteousness received must be preserved and increased through good works. It also states, contra the orthodox understanding of James 2, that works are not merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained. So, according to official Catholic doctrine, the imputed righteousness of Christ based on faith alone is not sufficient; Catholics must increase that righteousness with their own works of righteousness. Now, compare that understanding of justification with what the Scripture says in Romans 4:5:

Here is a key issue that one must understand in order to be saved – we cannot come to God for salvation with the idea that we contribute anything to our salvation. The hymn writer got it right when he said, “nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Notice what Paul says in Gal. 5:2-6. A person who feels that he must contribute some obedience to a law (such as circumcision) is “fallen from grace (5:4).” “Christ is no advantage to him (5:2).” “He is obliged to keep the whole law (5:3).” “You are severed from Christ (5:4).” These are strong words. The Bible says in these verses that if we try to contribute works to our salvation then the righteousness of Christ does not apply to us. Needless to say, without the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope (Eph. 2:12).


Andy

 

And this does, indeed, disagree with our Baptist principles. However, we notice that the righteousness has ALREADY been received, so it is not given because of good works. The salvation has already occurred through belief in Christ Jesus. You don't see this as saying a person is saved through works, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice carefully what Canon 24 says – the righteousness received must be preserved and increased through good works. It also states, contra the orthodox understanding of James 2, that works are not merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained. So, according to official Catholic doctrine, the imputed righteousness of Christ based on faith alone is not sufficient; Catholics must increase that righteousness with their own works of righteousness. Now, compare that understanding of justification with what the Scripture says in Romans 4:5:

Here is a key issue that one must understand in order to be saved – we cannot come to God for salvation with the idea that we contribute anything to our salvation. The hymn writer got it right when he said, “nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Notice what Paul says in Gal. 5:2-6. A person who feels that he must contribute some obedience to a law (such as circumcision) is “fallen from grace (5:4).” “Christ is no advantage to him (5:2).” “He is obliged to keep the whole law (5:3).” “You are severed from Christ (5:4).” These are strong words. The Bible says in these verses that if we try to contribute works to our salvation then the righteousness of Christ does not apply to us. Needless to say, without the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope (Eph. 2:12).


Andy </font>[/QUOTE]excellent post
very concise and great scripture support

 

It is interesting how an "enlightened" generation supports the Catholic church while denying what the Catholic church affirms. These issues have historically been black and white. This new found "grayness" was known neither to the Reformers or the Catholics. They both clearly understood the other side and knew that the other side understood them. There was none of this, "You really just don't understand what we teach." No, there were all out battles over the doctrine of justification. In this kindler, gentler world, we have those who deny what was clear to multitudes of generations before us. It boggles my mind to think why that is so. The Catholics have had no problem for hundreds of years telling us that we are wrong. And rightly so ... If what they teach is true, we are wrong. There is no middle ground. By the same token, evangelicals, for hundreds of years, have told the Catholics that they are wrong. And rightly so ... For is the evangelical is right, than the Catholic is wrong.

Why now, at the down of the 21st century, do we pretend like Trent and Vatican I and II never existed? Why do we pretend like the doctrines taught by the RCC for centuries and never repudiated by them are suddenly different than what the RCC has taught?

Let there be no mistake. These issues will not be solve by the ecumenists saying, "you just don't know what they really teach." To the contrary, people have known what they have taught for hundreds of years and stood against it to the point of death. It is only now that some are confused because of narrow minded thinking and unwillingness to view the historical landscape at large.

 

Scott, you still haven't dealt with the text. Why don't you show me from the texts I have provided what is wrong?

Why don't you explain why Catholics deny that what Christ accomplished is not sufficient?

 

The "hatred" is a hatred for a system that has removed hope from millions of people by offering a false replacement. It is not for people.

That was not missed by the reformers. IT has constantly been missed by the RCC who insists that belief in Christ is not enough. There must also be other things. Scripture never teaches such a thing and in fact explicitly denies it. The RCC certainly teaches a belief in Christ, but their unbiblical additions have made Christ insufficient for salvation and the gospel can endure no such additions while remaining the gospel. YOu have to go back and look at history and realize that these things were never misunderstood back then. As I say, both sides affirmed what they believed and both sides affirmed that the other side understood what their opponents believed. That is far different than the charge you are making. There are a great deal of people who do not understand what the RCC teaches about salvation, even those who quote parts of the Trent. We must move past those misunderstanding to gain a clear picture of the biblical gospel. The confusion is stifling to the truth.