The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[Paul Christensen]

It was derived from the text the modern versions are derived from.

Not sure about that, but certain verses were changed to suit JW doctrine.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Right, so do you interpret the Bible infallibly?

If not, please point me to a believer who does.

The original Hebrew and Greek documents written by the authors inspired of God were totally infallible. But we don't have them any more. All we have are manuscripts dating from the 4th Century which are actually copies of copies. But the miracle is that the essential message of the gospel has remained the same.

 

[RogerDC]

The original Hebrew and Greek documents written by the authors inspired of God were totally infallible. But we don't have them any more. All we have are manuscripts dating from the 4th Century which are actually copies of copies. But the miracle is that the essential message of the gospel has remained the same.

Totally irrelevant to my question, it would seem. I not talking about the validity of the Bible text itself - I talking about infallibly interpreting the Bible text.

 

[mjrhealth]

Totally irrelevant to my question, it would seem. I not talking about the validity of the Bible text itself - I talking about infallibly interpreting the Bible text.

thats impossible for anyman no matter how smart he thinks he might be.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Totally irrelevant to my question, it would seem. I not talking about the validity of the Bible text itself - I talking about infallibly interpreting the Bible text.

You made it relevant when you linked the JW New World Translation with all the other modern translations, the bulk of which involved Hebrew and Greek scholars in the translation teams where the New World translaters didn't.

Anyhow, the Catholic church depended on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which had many errors in it, so it might be a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Desperate words from a person who has just been Scripturally-SPANKED.

All I did was show you three Bible verses - and it offended you . . .

I think that any personal "you" statements directed at us that make us feel defensive, is on the level of "flaming" and "goading", and a type of abuse, even it is never so mild. We have the right to express our opinions and be proved wrong if need be by Scripture or just plain common logic, but no one has the right to throw abuse at us for expressing our opinions.

Since I joined this forum, I have noticed that some have expressed concern about the frequency of attacks and flaming that have go on here. When I saw that, I determined that I would do what I could to oppose flaming and abuse and use my contribution to show what a good debate looks like without having to resort to personal attacks on those who see different to what I do.

I don't know everything. I just have partial knowledge as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13. "We know in part and prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, the part shall be done away and we will know as we are known." (my paraphrase).

Therefore it all depends on how we are mentored and taught during our spiritual formative years in the particular religious environment that we were either brought up in as children or came into when we were first converted to Christ. The doctrine that we were taught by those teachers, pastors, and priests, whom we most respected, is doctrine that is very difficult to doubt, unless the Holy Spirit gives us new insight into God's Word to alter our theology to suit what we have learned anew.

For example: I spent the first 12 years of my Christian walk in Pentecostal churches. As a result I fully accepted its theology and practice and zealously defended it for the next 50 years. Then I read a book by a particular author showing where the Charismatic movement departed from the New Testament, and viewed a Bible teacher on Youtube who showed conclusively the areas of mainstream Charistmatic that were involved in pagan mind-control ("positive confession"), false prosperity and guaranteed-healing teaching and occult kundalini manifestation in services. As a result, this turned a lot of my Pentecostal/Charismatic theology on its head, and I had to re-examine what I previously practiced and supported, and found that much of it was missing from the New Testament. That was not altogether pleasant but it was necessary for me to adopt the attitude that if it ain't in the New Testament then it ain't true. Then the sayings of Jesus and Paul about false prophets, teachers, signs and wonders, began to have new significance for me.

But a couple of years ago, I would have defended them, like I had for the previous 50 years, to the max and refused to allow myself to believe anything different. It was as if any doubts about my Pentecostal theology were an attack on the foundation of my Christian faith. So I understand when people feel defensive and threatened when counter-arguments are present to what they firmly believe. But that is no excuse for viciously attacking and abusing those who give those counter-arguments.

the hardest thing to do it take what those we love and respect taught us and even consider they may be wrong.

it took me years to break the mold on some doctrines I was taught as fact. And change my view, things I too would fight hard to defend

we end up defending a person or a church and it becomes less about defending God or wanting to know what is really the truth

 

[Eternally Grateful]

… and I suppose the JWs' "Bible" is an accurate and trustworthy translation too.

I would really not trust any English translation perfectly, the English language itself is flawed. Which leads to so many false ideas about what the word says

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The point is not that his view is a Catholic view - the point is whether or not his argument makes sense. Judging an argument on its source, rather than its substance, is not a wise way to approach exegesis.

This would be true for many conversations

but in the sake of any conversation with the particular member, it does not fit

he is sharing his churches view, as he thinks beyond any doubt anything his church teaches is infallible, hence He is unreachable, and will only come off as he has since I have been here, argumentative,

 

[mailmandan]

James is right, and he uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab. But these are deeds that show their faith in God. It is not enough to say we have faith unless we show that we have faith by what we do.

But this is not following Mosaic or moral rules to try and be acceptable to God, or to comply with false Catholic doctrine dreamed up by successive popes to try and ingratiate ourselves with God. This is what Paul is talking about.

But James is saying that if we say we have faith in Christ, then we need to show it by getting to know the Bible, praying, fellowshipping with other Christians, conducting ourselves according to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control; and turning away from the works of the flesh. We do these things not to get right with God, but to show that we are right with God through our faith in Christ.

If a person says they have faith, and never pray, read the Bible, fellowship with other believers, and persist in the works of the flesh as a lifestyle, then they cannot prove that there has been a genuine transformation in their hearts toward God.

So, we go through the narrow gate through faith alone in Christ first, and then we show by our conduct that we have indeed come through the narrow gate and not just over the religious wall.

Amen! In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

In James 2:26, the comparison of the human spirit and faith converge around their modes of operation. The spirit (Greek pneuma) may also be translated as "breath." So as a breathless body exhibits no indication of life, so fruitless faith exhibits no indication of life. The source of the life in faith is not works; rather, life in faith is the source of works (Ephesians 2:5-10).

 

[Enow]

You seem to have digressed. We’re not discussing “our future resurrected state”, but what Eph 1:22-23 means when it says the Church IS the “fullness” of Christ.

When you are discussing the topic of the CC being that specific Church, then let us discuss Who is actually giving wisdom and revelation.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

God through the Holy Spirit does that, not the CC nor the Church since Christ is the Head of the Church and Head of every believer.

That passage is not referring to the future, but what the Church is NOW - it doesn’t say the Church “will be” the fullness of Christ - it says the Church “is” the fullness of Christ.

Since you are speaking of that reference by itself, rather than the topic that the CC is the Church, yeah, but I know I did not say that in regards to Ephesians 1:22-23, but something else you had said and I am not going back to prove it, because I see no reason why I would apply it to that reference, and you did conveniently left it out of the quote too since you only selected a portion of that quote from what post #?.

And yet even Ephesians 1:22-23 when read in context from verse 17 proves you are applying His words wrong to support that teaching that only the CC can interpret scripture for you.

In which case, the Church must be more than simply the people who belong to it.

For that application to be true, then where is the "Church of St. Peter" located, let alone mentioned in the N.T. specifically as the CC or the Church?

There is not even a prophesy dictating where the Head of the Church comes from as being the Head Authority over all the "body of Christ".

The CC is the biggest con and rip-offs ever derived from a city which was known for "all roads leads to Rome", where people try to make that city as the center of authority for all other religions. The spirit of covetousness can be seen in Pope Clement 1 in his first epistles to the Corinthians in exacting a collection from that Christian church and all other churches in Christianity as if he has a right to a portion of it from each and every church.

But only the Lord can help you see that even though pride can very well keep you from acknowledging that betrayal and pain.

 

[Enow]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God; however, because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), the Church is also the Word of God.

Disproven when you read Ephesians 1:17-23 in context as to Who gives us wisdom and revelations in the knowledge of Him.

You cannot separate the Head (Christ) from the body (the Church)

The body is not the Head, that is the point.

I said ..."The Church is to be subjected to the Word of God, hence Jesus Christ the Lord. That means the appointed bishops and priests are to follow by example as yielding to the Word of God thus by following their examples, the followers submit to the Word of God, not them."

You said below...

Exactly. That is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Not when they insist they are the Head to be the sole authority for the correct interpretation of scripture; that is not what the CC teaches and that is not what Ephesians 1:17-23 says in context.

No Catholic believes he can do no wrong or that the Pope, Bishops and priests are impeccable. The Catholics Church teaches that the faithful - including the Pope, bishops and priests - are all sinners.So what? All that means is that the tradition of calling a priest, “Father”, came later in the history of the Church.So says you. There is nothing in Eph 4 or 1John 2 that says believers are perfected by the Scriptures alone.I’ve got news for you - you are “reliant on man” to teach you all things true - the Scriptures were all written by man.

Scripture were written by man as inspired by the Holy Ghost. So scripture can be taught by the Holy Ghost.

Since Rome was known as the ruling authority as all roads leads to Rome, is it no wonder why the CC adapted that which Jesus said not to be called?

 

[Enow]

I said "Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19 has saints breaks the least of His commandments and teach others are "called" the least in the kingdom of heaven. So from your point of view, how can a Catholic break any of those commandments to be a Catholic and still be called the least in the kingdom of heaven?

The forgiveness of sins.

If they have forgiveness of sins, then they had repented of their sins and not be called least in the kingdom of heaven, right? To continue to break the least of His commandments and teach others so is why they are called least in the kingdom of heaven.

The one, true Church (on earth) is make up of sinners, so of course they are not going to be perfect. A Church full of imperfect sinners doesn’t prove that that Church is not the one, true Church that was founded by Christ. Every one of the writers of the Bible was an imperfect sinner - does that mean the Bible is not the true and infallible word of God?The seven Churches all belonged to the one, true Church - the Catholic Church. Individuals who didn’t repent of their sins would have been disciplined or ultimately excommunicated if their sins warranted it.

So if a Catholic must do all those works of Catholicism, and yet do not persevere in charity, he is not saved as the catechism says, is false. See?

Incidentally, I couldn’t find any reference to the NT Scriptures in what Jesus says to the seven Churches in the book of Revelation. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

Since the apostle John is in Heaven writing His words for the Book of Revelation as led by the Holy Spirit, we should consider Revelation as His words.

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Then read chapter 2 & 3 for what He says to the seven churches individually.

Jesus calls Peter “this rock” (Matt 16:18) because Peter is Jesus’ representative on earth.

Every saved believer with the Holy Spirit in them is a representative of Jesus Christ on earth.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Please explain why Jesus changed Simon’s name to “rock” the very first time they met (John 1:42).

It is a different Greek word as part of a larger rock hence "stone" is the real meaning of Peter's name. There is another Greek word for Rock and it is not the same as the Greek word for Peter's name which is stone.

The Church is the body and the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). The Church is not assigned "in place" of Jesus Christ - it is part of Jesus Christ, his body. You cannot separate the head from the body.

The Church is assigning herself in place of Jesus Christ when taking the lead as the Head for interpreting scripture correctly for each and every believer.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I was raised Catholic, but I gradually fell away from all forms of Christianity after I left school. Many years later I became interesting in Christianity again and believed the best way to learn to be a Christian was to study the Bible - but I was wrong. After becoming disillusioned with the many non-Catholic denominations I joined, the Holy Spirt finally opened my eyes the truth that the Catholic Church is Christ's one, true Church and that by studying and living by her teachings is the best way to be a Christian. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that has proven by its fruits to be so.

Hello Roger,
I have found a different way that is quite biblical.
I went back as a believer and examined my roots in Catholicism.
I spoke with several priests and was shocked at the less than biblical responses offered.
I have a second cousin who is a nun who speaks on ewtn, and WINS RADIO 1010 NY.for the church. Her theology is defective.
Roger....here is what I could suggest. If you are out in a public place and get into a discussion with a RC. Just ask them biblical questions and you will quickly discover a total lack of understanding .
I repeat a little exercise over and over if having such a conversation.
I write on a piece of paper 6 boxes.
I then tell them each box represents a chapter in the book of Ephesians.
I then ask them to write either a verse, or a name, or a word associated with the chapters....get a blank stare, deer in the headlights look 98% of the time. Womb to tomb RC. Do not know scripture at all much less sola scriptura. You go ahead and try it, let me know what kind of fruit you find?
I am thankful they had the trinity correct and were useful in determining the canon of scripture, but the false works based gospel and idolatry is fatal.

 

[Enow]

When Jesus said, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18), he was clearly referring to the Church - to claim otherwise is just plain stupidity. Sorry, but your credibility as a intelligent reader of Scripture has just flown right out the window.

Again the Greek word for Peter's name is not the same as the rock Jesus was talking about.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

Go to this site, in the left column scroll down to Matthew in blue and click on the #16 in blue to pull up that chapter. Then scroll down on the right to those verses where the Greek words in blue are mirroring the verses in English.

Then click on PetroV for the name of Peter and then click on petra for the rock Jesus is talking about in verse 18.

PetroV is "apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare KhfaV - Kephas 2786.

Kephas or Cephas is stone; piece of rock.

Petra is "feminine of the same as PetroV - Petros 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.

So not the same Greek word nor the exact same meaning for why Peter's name is regarded as Cephas or stone. If it was exactly the same meaning, then "petra" would be unnecessary, but it was necessary because the difference is size.

Oh, so Jesus gave Peter the “keys of Heaven” (Matt 16:19), but took them back again when he ascended to Heaven. That doesn’t make any sense.

Same keys given to His disciples and so you are forgetting that there were other disciples in that room when you applied Jesus's words only to Peter himself.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

These keys to binding and loosing is given to every believer abiding in Him in correcting others, even those considered the little ones that go astray.

Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

So Peter is not so exclusive as you had been led to believe.

Jesus has the “keys”, and Peter also has the “keys”, because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and Peter is Christ’s representative on earth. The power and authority of the “keys” comes from Christ, but that power and authority is exercised supernaturally on earth through Peter and his successors (ie, the Catholic Popes).

As important as that line of succession is per the CC, we do not see that as being taught as such in the N.T. That was just a con line to keep the authority of ruling over the churches from Rome.

 

[Truther]

Not sure about that, but certain verses were changed to suit JW doctrine.

That too.

This video explains it all and includes the NWT's origins....

 

[Enow]

I choose not to dignify the unintelligent, misinformed drivel contained in that link with a response.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So no meekness nor fear here for why there is no answer from you. You are to reprove and correct by the scripture but you opted out by attacking the source.

 

[Truther]

Hello Roger,
I have found a different way that is quite biblical.
I went back as a believer and examined my roots in Catholicism.
I spoke with several priests and was shocked at the less than biblical responses offered.
I have a second cousin who is a nun who speaks on ewtn, and WINS RADIO 1010 NY.for the church. Her theology is defective.
Roger....here is what I could suggest. If you are out in a public place and get into a discussion with a RC. Just ask them biblical questions and you will quickly discover a total lack of understanding .
I repeat a little exercise over and over if having such a conversation.
I write on a piece of paper 6 boxes.
I then tell them each box represents a chapter in the book of Ephesians.
I then ask them to write either a verse, or a name, or a word associated with the chapters....get a blank stare, deer in the headlights look 98% of the time. Womb to tomb RC. Do not know scripture at all much less sola scriptura. You go ahead and try it, let me know what kind of fruit you find?
I am thankful they had the trinity correct and were useful in determining the canon of scripture, but the false works based gospel and idolatry is fatal.

If I may, the Trinity doctrine is also incorrect.....

 

[Enow]

Right, so do you interpret the Bible infallibly?

If not, please point me to a believer who does.

Kind of a deflection from the truth in scripture that the Holy Spirit in believers does the job. We may not always listen, especially when we refuse to believe the church led us astray by their teachings when the scripture clearly opposes such teachings, but the Holy Spirit is doing His job.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

If I may, the Trinity doctrine is also incorrect.....

In what way? I am not sure what you mean by your statement.
Are you saying you deny 3 eternal Divine persons, yet 1 true and living God?

 

[Truther]

In what way? I am not sure what you mean by your statement.
Are you saying you deny 3 eternal Divine persons, yet 1 true and living God?

Correct.

There is one divine person fully indwelling one (made a)quickening spirit, human person, bodily(Col 2:9).

No 3 persons, but one divine inside one human, bodily.