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

[Paul Christensen]

The word "approval" is not literally there, it is implied - as would be obvious to any intelligent adult who is not afraid to read the text honestly.

Not necessarily. Not Paul's style. His general attitude is that he feels he doesn't need approval from any man except Jesus Himself. He said that when he received the revelation of the gospel, he said he "conferred not with flesh and blood". So it would be out of character for him to go and seek approval for the gospel that he received from the Lord by revelation from any mortal men, even if they were Apostles. In fact he was not seeking approval in his description of his meeting with the Apostles:
"And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Galatians 2:9).

 

[Paul Christensen]

You didn't answer my question: Why did Jesus change Simon's name to "rock" the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

He didn't. Peter had just answered Jesus' question about who the disciples though He was, and Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And Jesus said, "You are just a small stone, but upon this rock [the revelation that you had just been given from the Father] I will build My church. So the Christian church is not built upon Peter at all, but on the revelational truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Comprehension 101, and not shoe-horning the Scripture to fit doctrine for a church that was not going to come into existence for another six hundred years.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I should think so - salvation is a process and we are not saved until after we die are judged and granted salvation by Christ. Until then, we only have the hope of being saved.

Wrong

Paul said we have been saved multiple times

we may not be living in our saved state, but as paul,said, we have been saved, by Grace through faith (a completed action) and we have been saved not by good works, but by Gods mercy.

I have been justified

I have been perfected by one sacrifice

I have been given eternal life

I have been given the spirit as a seal until that day of redemption

I can go on and on what God says I have right here and right now

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The first problem with your argument is that “all Scripture” referred to in 2Tim 3:16 is the Old Testament (see v.15). Pray tell, how can the OT alone make a Christian “complete”? No, it doesn’t say anything at all about correcting “false thinking” - it simply says “for correction”. Furthermore, how can the OT alone correct the “false thinking” of a Christian?No, that is not what it says all at - it simply says “profitable for doctrine”. The word “profitable” doesn’t mean “all truth is given in scripture” - that is pure invention on your part.

Furthermore, how can the OT provide “all truth” to a Christian?The word “righteousness” refers to obeying the commandments; as does “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”. Nothing there about testing every doctrine by Scripture or Scripture containing everything the apostles taught and practised. Eph 4:4-14 contradicts you. It describes the gifts Christ provides for the following:

“for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive”.

How it say all that achieved? By Scripture? No, Scripture is not even mentioned - it is by Christ’s provision of “some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers”. These Christ-appointed people are the CHURCH, which is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth” (1Tim 3:15).

Well let’s see

Paul told Timothy as a child he had enough knowledge to be saved

he only had the OT as a child

2 Timothy 3:15
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

so you might want to rethink the thought that anything outside of the Bible is required for knowledge on salvation

and he specifically says the scripture is able to make a man thoroughly equipped for every good work

I would trust paul knew what he was talking about, and anyone who tells you otherwise should be ignored

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Protestant hero, Martin Luther, in his dishonest translation of the NT, added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, so that it read “a man is justified by faith alone”. He lied in this way in order to deceive anyone stupid enough to listen to him and his false “faith alone” doctrine.

Luther also wanted to remove the books of James and Revelation from the Bible altogether. (This patron saint of fools is on record as saying he could commit any number of serious sins and still be saved!)

Number one, he is not my leader so please stop with that stuff, it is one thing that makes catholics sound foolish

2. while he may have added the word, it still stands. Faith minus works equals faith alone, although faith is NEVER alone and in reality we are saved by GRACE through faith (not works Ie faith alone). But again, faith is never alone

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The word "approval" is not literally there, it is implied - as would be obvious to any intelligent adult who is not afraid to read the text honestly.

Yet Paul went for three years with only Gods approval to the gentiles, with no knowledge of the Jerusalem church.

as you say it would be obvious to any intelligent adult Paul did not need approval, That God was with him, and would be whether the peter approved of him or not

you also have to take the times and events into account.

I mean really!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You didn't answer my question: Why did Jesus change Simon's name to "rock" the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

He called him little pebble, and stated on the rock (the knowledge that Jesus was the christ) he would build his church

if you look, the Church was not built on peter, Paul had as much if not more influence in building the church. Peter was pretty much limited to Jerusalem, where God wanted him, Paul built the churches in the Roman Empire

 

[Truther]

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that?

No, the Bible does not define a trinity in it.

The Holy Ghost confirms it.

 

[Truther]

That is correct when the Pope is teaching Church doctrine.
Your comment demonstrates that you don’t understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. This is what I find curious about ex-Catholics who attack the Church - they don’t understand Catholicism!Sort of, but not quite - the Pope is God’s representative on earth and is appointed and empowered to shepherd Christ’s flock on earth.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


"Forgive me father, for I have sinned, this is my ...confession".

I don't miss the black box, Roger.

 

[Enow]

Correct.

Adam was created in the likeness of him that was to come(Rom 5:14).

The last Adam was the creation pattern for the first Adam(body, soul and spirit).

And so you cannot say Jesus cited as the man in this only Mediator between God and man, as not God.

Did you know that Jesus was the God men had seen in the O.T.? They did not see the Father, but Jesus had seen Him. Jesus said so here.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Abraham had seen the Lord in Genesis 18 th chapter where the Lord ate and drank with him and gave the news that Sara will have a son.

The Lord appeared to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2

Jacob had wrestled with the Lord and seen Him face to face in Genesis 32:24-30

Jesus said scriptures testify of Him in John 5:39-40 and that Moses had written of Him John 5:46-47

Jesus spoke of seeing Abraham in John 8:56-59

So that means Jesus is the God men had seen in the O.T.

And here is a prophesy that testify to Three Persons in the One God.

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

So how can the Lord God and His Spirit sent Him where 2 Witnesses are required to be true for sending Him, the God Our Redeemer; hence Jesus? That was what was fulfilled at Jesus's water baptism that Jesus was talking about in verse 15 of Matthew 3:15-17.

But if you want to deflect from all those scripture that testify to that truth, that Jesus is God and that He had a celestial body before His incarnation...

Then I reckon you will resist the truth in His words that the Father has a celestial body too from which the request was made to create man in "our image" and after "our likeness" in Genesis 1:26. So the Godhead is complicated than you believe.

You better start asking Jesus for help at that throne of grace to see the truth in His words, brother.

 

[Truther]

And so you cannot say Jesus cited as the man in this only Mediator between God and man, as not God.

Did you know that Jesus was the God men had seen in the O.T.? They did not see the Father, but Jesus had seen Him. Jesus said so here.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Abraham had seen the Lord in Genesis 18 th chapter where the Lord ate and drank with him and gave the news that Sara will have a son.

The Lord appeared to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2

Jacob had wrestled with the Lord and seen Him face to face in Genesis 32:24-30

Jesus said scriptures testify of Him in John 5:39-40 and that Moses had written of Him John 5:46-47

Jesus spoke of seeing Abraham in John 8:56-59

So that means Jesus is the God men had seen in the O.T.

And here is a prophesy that testify to Three Persons in the One God.

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

So how can the Lord God and His Spirit sent Him where 2 Witnesses are required to be true for sending Him, the God Our Redeemer; hence Jesus? That was what was fulfilled at Jesus's water baptism that Jesus was talking about in verse 15 of Matthew 3:15-17.

But if you want to deflect from all those scripture that testify to that truth, that Jesus is God and that He had a celestial body before His incarnation...

Then I reckon you will resist the truth in His words that the Father has a celestial body too from which the request was made to create man in "our image" and after "our likeness" in Genesis 1:26. So the Godhead is complicated than you believe.

You better start asking Jesus for help at that throne of grace to see the truth in His words, brother.

They saw God through Jesus, not as Jesus.
Jesus, in John 4:24 describes God as a Spirit... him...him.
Jesus in Luke 4:1 was full of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore the invisible God was manifested though Jesus to them.
Now, God knew his human son before the foundation of the world, so from time to time, ancient men saw him too.
God can do that.

 

[Enow]

You didn't answer my question: Why did Jesus change Simon's name to "rock" the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

When they met, Jesus prophesied that Simon will be called Peter. When "Peter" had announced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus addressed him by his former name of Simon for why He was to be called Peter for what "Simon" had said which was revealed to him by the Father.

BTW That reference you provided puts Cephas as stone per Strong's Concordance and not the rock "petra" that Jesus was going to build His church on.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So you can't say Peter means rock when the Bible says specifically that it means stone.

Rock is always a reference to deity in the O.T. and Christ is that Rock. See the list of Bible verses testifying to that effect at that link.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: rock God

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Christ is the rock that the church is built on since He is the chief cornerstone and the gates of hell shall not prevail upon it since the chief cornerstone has risen from the dead with the keys of hell and death with Him. He did not have those keys until He had risen from the dead and He still has them in Heaven.

 

[RogerDC]

He didn't. Peter had just answered Jesus' question about who the disciples though He was, and Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And Jesus said, "You are just a small stone, but upon this rock [the revelation that you had just been given from the Father] I will build My church. So the Christian church is not built upon Peter at all, but on the revelational truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Comprehension 101, and not shoe-horning the Scripture to fit doctrine for a church that was not going to come into existence for another six hundred years.

Please pay attention to what my post said - I'm talking about John 1:42, not Matt 16.

In John 1:42, Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas, which is Aramaic for "rock" ... this happened the very first time they met. Explain why Jesus did that.

 

[RogerDC]

He called him little pebble, and stated on the rock (the knowledge that Jesus was the christ) he would build his church

Jesus and Simon meet for the very first time in John 1:42, whereupon Jesus immediately changes Simon's name to Cephas, which is an Aramaic word meaning "rock". Please explain why Jesus did that.

 

[RogerDC]

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


"Forgive me father, for I have sinned, this is my ...confession".

I don't miss the black box, Roger.

Please be advised that that old chestnut is right up there with the very dumbest anti-Catholic arguments ever. How embarrassing.
So no one can call their own biological father, "Father"? Hilarious.

Explain why Steven and Paul both addressed the Jewish religious leaders as "Fathers".

 

[Paul Christensen]

Please pay attention to what my post said - I'm talking about John 1:42, not Matt 16.

In John 1:42, Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas, which is Aramaic for "rock" ... this happened the very first time they met. Explain why Jesus did that.

Does not change the meaning of what Jesus said to Peter - that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Jesus and Simon meet for the very first time in John 1:42, whereupon Jesus immediately changes Simon's name to Cephas, which is an Aramaic word meaning "rock". Please explain why Jesus did that.

If you would stop listening to people, and actually go study for yourself, you would find the Greek writer, who inspired the written words, used two different greek words when he put this conversation in writting

he said, I call you Petros (a stone or small rock, a person who seems to be unbreakable) and on this rock (Petra- which means a large stone, bedrock) I will build my church

he is not building his church on some man who would later be called out by Paul because of sin,

he is building it on the gospel. The knowledge that Christ is the son of God, and in him there is eternal life

The thought God built a church an a flawed sinful human who had to be saved by the very stone Christ built his church on, is prety out there

 

[Truther]

Please be advised that that old chestnut is right up there with the very dumbest anti-Catholic arguments ever. How embarrassing.
So no one can call their own biological father, "Father"? Hilarious.

Explain why Steven and Paul both addressed the Jewish religious leaders as "Fathers".

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.





.....they were called Apostles etc, not "Fathers", masters etc.

Find one single verse that shows the early Christians calling their peers "fathers".

Now, why did the RCC directly disobey Jesus?

 

[RogerDC]

Does not change the meaning of what Jesus said to Peter - that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

In other words, you have no idea why Jesus gave Simon he the name "rock" the very first time they met. Well here's a clue: Read Matt 16:18. It ain't rocket science.

 

[RogerDC]

If you would stop listening to people, and actually go study for yourself, you would find the Greek writer, who inspired the written words, used two different greek words when he put this conversation in writting

he said, I call you Petros (a stone or small rock, a person who seems to be unbreakable) and on this rock (Petra- which means a large stone, bedrock) I will build my church

If you understood the use of gender in Greek words, you would understand why the two different words are used in Matt 16:18 - and it has nothing to with your imagined difference between a small stone and a large rock.


Furthermore, you didn't answer my question: Why did Jesus give Simon the name Cephas - meaning "rock" - the very first time they met (John 1:42)?