"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

If you believe that the Redemption was complete at the Cross indeed, it is OK.

On the other hand, sometimes people insist that they should do something to know and believe what Jesus has done at the Cross.

Knowing and believing what Jesus has done at the Cross doesn't require any human efforts. It is very simple, and we just believe it.

The opposition to it is explained in Hebrews 4.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

I know this is not the problem with you but let me tell you some cases.

The people who has never had the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit try to replace the acceptance of Holy Spirit with other things like Rituals, Traditions, human efforts.
Water Baptism cannot replace the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Water Baptism cannot replace the acceptance of the Holy Spirit by faith.
However, men try to replace them with the human rituals, which avails nothing in the presence of God.

In some countries, the Christian schools and Catholic schools require the certificate of Baptism for the employment of the teachers, then some teacher-candidates are baptised just in order to get the jobs. Are they born again by the Water Baptism?

The Replace of Faith Alone with other things or with Faith plus Human efforts is a stubborn wickedness against God.

 

The Word doesn't contradict itself. If it does I would like you to be the one to harmonize it. So here is the plain teaching of the Word of God.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
--On this basis (no interpretation needed) do I adopt that salvation is by God's grace alone and not by works. Any questions about that verse that disturb you about that interpretation. How can that plain teaching contradict your teaching (which it does) and still be consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Romans 5:1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
--We are justified by faith and faith alone. The verse does not say faith plus anything. It simply says faith. To argue that there is something more than faith is an argument from silence, and thus a logical fallacy. Justification is by faith alone--a doctrine clearly taught in this verse.
This is cleary contrary to your doctrine. How do you reconcile this with the rest of the Bible, the rest of your theology. You have a problem here.

Ephesians 2:8-9 for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast.
--I previously went through this verse and demonstrated how every single phrase in this passage points to faith alone--every phrase!! It has never been refuted yet! It contradicts your theology, but is in harmony with the rest of Scripture. It seems that salvation is by faith alone is the standard that is set up by by the Bible. Many other Scriptures could be cited to keep on demonstrating to bolster this wonderful truth. But you say works is needed. You cite two reasons: The childish absence of the word "alone." (And I will keep on maintaining that this defence is one of the most childish ones that I have seen since there are so many ways of saying the same thing without using the exact English word).
And secondly, your use of James 2:24, which is consistently used out of context.
So instead of going back to your lame two defences show from the totality of Scripture that I am wrong in my assertion that salvation is by faith alone.

 

Since I'm not allowed to read Scripture, what does Ephesians 2:10 read? No explanation DHK, since Scripture is so clear, just reproduce verse 10 for the class.
-

 

Agnus,

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

And that further and wonderfully supports what DHK and I have been saying over and over again.

We are justified by faith alone. Then, after being justified by faith alone, the evidence of the reality of our new birth becomes evident in the form of a changed life.

Its called the "Fruit of the Spirit". In the passage you requested its referred to as good works, as in the book of James, which is regularly mis-understood as well by the RCC and other similar false theologies.

The good works/fruit that follow salvation are the evidence that the new birth...by faith alone...was legitimate and not just a false profession.

Glad you brought that up.

Mike

 

D28guy:

Just so we understand each other, strictly speaking from an Eastern Orthodox Church view, Salvation is NOT of faith alone…nor is it of works alone, but of Christ alone…let me repeat:

Salvation is NOT of faith alone…nor is it of works alone, but of Christ alone…

Christ gives us both the gift of faith and the gift of good works that we might use them both, I repeat; use both the gifts of faith and of good works to live them out to fulfill our calling as God’s workmanship.

It’s not about earning merit, that’s an innovation from Protestantism when they threw the baby out with the bathwater during the Reformation era and as time went by, Protestant theology got weaker and weaker and the theology of simply fulfilling what God has created us to be got lost.

Faith without works is dead.

An Evangelical can ask the Orthodox Christian: Can you be saved by good works? And an Orthodox Christian can ask: Can you be saved by dead faith?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

This is for DHK

Yes, by faith alone. Faith comes from God, is His gracious gift to the believer. it is not a natural ability of the unbeliever, not even of the believer though it is the natural ability of the new man or new heart, the new creation of God. I know You agree. Just wanted to emphsize the perspective.

To Eliyahu,
Yes, salvation is attributed to the Holy Spirit only. But to receive the Holy Spirit or to have received Him, comes not of man or by man. That I think you agree with. But faith is that only and fully to every requirement answering gift of the Holy Spirit for salvation fully and finally and eternally. Wesley searched for more or something more than faith which would be the gift of the Holy Spirit unto perfect salvation. He was wrong.

To Matt Black,

Faith without works -- as the condition; but no faith without works, as the fruit of salvation. And for sure, water baptism does not count under any of those works!

 

Agnus_Dei

"The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit."

GE
We have met before. I think you remember. You still make the Church - men - more than the Word of God. You still put the pope and his priests above the Word of God. You still are Roman Catholic. I still am Protestant; I protest to your heresy.

 

Taken "living men empowered by the Holy Spirit" are the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, the 'living men' are as much 'empowered by the Holy Spirit' as is the paper they write their edicts and letters and canons on.

 

...and you obviously don't know what you're talking about...

ICXC NIKA
-

 

This is Roman Catholicism: "The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit."

I very well know what I am talking about. I know one when I see one. I'll post Spurgeon for you ... later. Have a nice day!

 

Oh, so you’ll quote a little Spurgeon for the class, put me in my place huh…can’t wait…do you have any thoughts on the subject yourself or is Spurgeon your authority?

By the way, my gggrandfather was a Missionary Baptist preacher, his middle name, get ready this’ll shock you….: Spurgeon

Oh and for the record I’m not Roman Catholic, I’m a Catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

I think we cannot judge John Wesley by a short sentence in his absence. He may have emphasized the willingness of a person who accepts Jesus by the faith.

What we should remember is that everything was complete at the Cross, then our portion and responsibility is that we should believe it and give thanks to God and Jesus Christ.

Bible says even this:

Eph 2:

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Can you believe that you are sitting in the heavenly places in Jesus Christ? This is the True Christianity and the Truth.

 

GE

As long as you stick to your post-script, to me, you will be Roman Catholic. I am obliged to take you at your word - your own confession of faith by this post-script which screams against the Protestant principle of Scripture only, and which screams against the Lordship of Jesus Christ of the Body of Christ's own, and which screams against the Bible-teaching of the Inspiration if the Holy Scriptures. It - your statement under every post of yours, is an abomination - a Roman Catholic abomination - and it's a shame for being a Baptist / and / or / Eastern Orthodox / or whatever while you cannot see it. Wake up!

 

For one, my signature says nothing against the Lordship of Jesus Christ or the inspiration of Scripture. It’s your Romaphobic colored glasses that doesn’t allow you to think for yourself and actually read and comprehend what my signature is communicating.

Let’s walk through my signature point by point.

The Bible did not produce the Church,
The “Bible” I speak of is that of the Bible you carry and read that contain the collective writings of both the Old and New Testaments.

The Church was started on day of Pentecost and no such bible as we know of today existed, other than the Old Testament Scriptures.

the Church produced the Bible.
Contrary to popular belief among certain Protestant circles, the Early Church formulated the Bible’s table of contents. It was the Early Church Fathers that took the daunting task of deciding which Gospel letters, Epistles…ect where authentic and which were counterfeit. Of course, Christ did promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church and thus Christ made good on His promise!

The Church is not built upon the Bible;
Other than the OT Scriptures, no Bible as we know of it today exists on the day of Pentecost and the Church was well in existence before the Canon of Scripture was settled. This doesn't mean that the Church today doesn't use the Bible as its guide,

it is built upon the apostles and prophets.
The Church was built upon the Apostles, with Jesus Christ as the Church’s corner stone. It was the Apostles that journeyed and established Churches in other parts of the world as commanded by Christ.

Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, we see 11 Apostles being commissioned by Christ to go into all the world teaching and baptizing. Christ said the He would send the Holy Spirit who will guide them in truth and will remind them of ALL things. We see no such written instructions for the Apostles given to them by Christ. The only clue we have of Christ writing anything was what He wrote in the dirt with His finger. Neither did Christ instruct His Apostles to go forth and write letters and formulate a book either.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Agnus,

Your statements are provocative to all the True Christian Believers who truly believe in the Words of God, the Bible Scriptures.
You just revealed and confirmed that your religion like the Roman Cahtolic, is pagan and different from the Biblical churches built upon the Bible Scripture. In that aspect, the true aspect of your religion is revealed by your own claim.

Bible existed before the Pentecost, When Apostle Paul talked about Scriptures in 2 Tim 3:15-17, the Scriptures were the Old Testament and they existed before any NT churches. What you are talking about the combined OT and NT in the current form still existed before the formation of Roman Catholic church in 4 centuries AD.
Any time whenever the True Believers existed since the time of Moses, there existed the written words of God, and at the time of Apostles, they quoted the written words of God, at that time they had the full sets of Words of God as we read Acts 2 which quotes the prophet Joel in v 16 and King David's Psalm in v 27. All the time there existed the Words of God to guide the church since the church was formed on Pentecost.

You must distinguish between Early Church and Early Church Fathers ( ECF)
Early Church was built upon Jesus Christ, the Word of God by the Holy Spirit.
YOu are insisting that the human beings endeavored to decide the Words of God, which is the Words of God. In that process, you are converting the Words of God inspired by the Holy Spirit into HUman Selections and Human decisions. Your religion is such converting machine.
ECF's are different from Early Church. Do you count Fabian, Novatian, Donatus, Nestorius as ECF's ? What are the criteria to decide and select the early believers as ECF's?

Do you claim that there were no Bible Scriptures until 4 c AD when the Catholic was formed ? How did the Believers obeyed the commandments of God during 1c thru 4 c AD?

At any time, the true church was built upon the Words of God revealed to the human beings and conformed to the Bible scriptures available to them which was perfect according to the then Bible canon.

Your religion and your faith are not Christian as you honestly confessed, and therefore such pagan heretic religion has been well and rightly banned and prohibited on this Board. Your religion is an absolute pagan, Anti-Christian faith which promotes the human tradition, idolatry, goddess worship by tricky way.

The church is built upon Jesus christ ( 1 Cor 3:11-15, Mt 16:18). You are honestly confessing your religion is different from the Biblical Christianity.

Jesus quoted the hundreds of Bible verses and the Apostles followed Him in quoting the Scriptures. According to the Bible, Jesus died ( 1 Cor 15:3), and according to the promise of Father and according to the Bible, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Believers.( Acts 1:4-5, Joel 2:28, 3:18, Acts 2:16-18.
Your religion is NOT Christian Faith. The True Christian Faith is based on and built upon the Words of God. Any tradition or ECF's theory which contradict Words of God is invalid and useless. YOu are trying to hold on the straw religion which will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

 

Agnus Dei, I see your point; it is well known and well accepted - in Roman Catholic circles. But do you realise, exactly - I mean exactly - your 'signature', is that of the so called 'Jesus-Revolution' or 'New Reformation'? How do you relate to them?

 

How does that follow? What Agnus posted was eminently Christian

No. As Agnus pointed out, only the OT existed then - and the version of the OT was the LXX containing the Apocrypha.

Yes, including the Apocrypha, and you just contradicted your previous point. Either the Bible (39 books of the OT and 27 of the NT) existed before Pentecost, as you assert above, or it didn't - which is it?

Arguably, the Roman Catholic Church only existed after 1054 - prior to that from Pentecost onwards it is correct only to speak of 'the Church' - and it was this Church which settled the Canon of the NT in the late 4th century.

So the OT is sufficient, then? Perhaps the Jews are right after all...

No. Why?

Oh, you mean that the Apostles and their successors were human as well as inspired by the Holy Spirit? OK, based on that criteria, all the NT is suspect: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Peter, Paul and James - all human making human selections as to what goes into Scripture and what doesn't - heck, John even admits that he's been selective at the end of his Gospel.

The Scriptures they had were the LXX (including the Apocrypha), plus the teachings of the Apostles - both oral and in writing. Of the written apostolic teachings, what was included in and excluded from the NT was not decided until the end of the 4th century, hence the importance of the oral teaching, which we call Apostolic Tradition

Oh, stop being so silly!

He is confessing the faith of the Church built upon Jesus Christ, which is His Body, and it is therefore fully congruent with Biblical Christianity.

 

Eliyahu,

Agnus Dei writing pointed out that: "The Church was built upon the Apostles, with Jesus Christ as the Church’s corner stone"

To which you incredibly responded...

Let's turn in our Bibles, class, to Ephesians where Paul describing the Church, which he calls "the household of God" (2:19), says of it: "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph 2:20)

Look also in Revelation where John describes the Heavenly Jerusalem (ie the Church--see Gal 4:26) has being on twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles on them (Rev 21:14).

So perhaps, for the sake of any credibility you might have, you just might want to reconsider your assertion that Agnus Dei's "religion is different from the Biblical Christianity."

Peace.

 

Well, you did start it!