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

[Paul Christensen]

I love this stuff - it downright hilarious! Seriously, some folks are so gullible - it's kinda disturbing what they're willing to believe.

Pictures don't lie. They show where the pope's and bishops' mitres were derived from. It is a feature of deluded heretics - they ignore any substantive evidence that exposes their heresy and paganism. This is in keeping with the Scripture:
"And with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

 

[RogerDC]

I guess the Roman Catholic bishop of Bloody Mary queen of England's time had the correct interpretation of the Bible when he threw a newborn baby into the flames as its mother was burning at the stake for just owning an English Bible.

I guess I could ignore your moronic drivel.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I guess I could ignore your moronic drivel.

Secular history with no religious bias. It is usual with heretics to abuse those who disagree with them.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I guess I could ignore your moronic drivel.

Put me on ignore and I'll go away!

 

[mjrhealth]

There is no doubt that there some Catholics have sinned grossly and make terrible mistakes, giving the Church a bad name. The Church is both divine and human - the divine part is perfect; the human part is far from perfect.

But mens churches are not, all daughters of teh harlot

 

[FollowHim]

Let me get this straight: You recommend to me an article that admits Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which can mean “rock” or ‘big boulder” (cf John 1:42), yet you reject the possibility that Peter could be “this rock” in Matt 16:18.

Wow, that’s bizarre. I wonder if the penny will ever drop.

My church is full of loving people converted out of RCC faith. To them this was sinners performing acts to be saved. When they learnt about love and God's gift, it all changed.

In the best way, this kingdom shift matters. Everything points to stone idols, the church buildings, the traditions, the litergy etc. which hides the need for heart transformation.

And unfortunately my reality in Christ is not welcome. The church ultimately do not run countries or execute people.
An adulterer is not killed, just excluded from the fellowship.

If formal ceremonies are more important than our hearts state in Christ, all is pointless. And sadly that is what the RCC does.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

First of all, this verse doesn't say works are irrelevant to salvation - it says works alone don't lead to salvation.

how can you sit here and read something so clear and get it wrong

The word a ONLY is not found in the text, Not by good works we have done, BUT by his mercy he saved us,

Secondly, no one is saved until after they die and are judged and granted salvation by Christ.

Once again, how can you read something, and get it so wrong

HE SAVED US. A completed action.

Thirdly, if works are irrelevant to salvation, please explain the following verses:
”a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24);

”faith without works is dead” (James 2:26);

“As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as He who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct, since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’. And if you invoke as Father Him who judges each one impartially according to his DEEDS, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile” (1Peter 1:14-17);

“Strive for … the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14).Firstly, this verse doesn't say works are irrelevant to salvation.

I have explained James to you so many times I lost track, funny how again you leave out romans 4. How about you explain how that people who have some works according to James are saved, (notice, really one work, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and say 2 works would by definition fulfill James requirement of works, because the person who did that/5those works, can not be said to have NO work.

the other passages as I have mentioned are descriptive passages, they describe what Gods children look like, not prescriptive passages.

Secondly, repentance is “works” - are you saying you can be saved without repentance? Keeping God’s commandments is also “works” - are you saying Christians can disobey God’s commandments - ie, sin - and still be saved? If so, good luck with that - no one escapes the Judgement.

Repentance is not a work man, your church has failed to give you a grasp on what a real work is.

repentance is a work of a God, he works to change your mind

faith is a state of mind, where the repentant person takes his faith off himself and his works, and calls out to a God to save him (like the tax collector). Who went home justified? The repentant sinner, or the proud worker?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don’t think Paul lied, but if I understand you properly, you claim that when Paul speaks of being “instruct(ed) … for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” (2Tim 3:15), he is referring exclusively to the Scriptures. But the Scriptures Paul is referring to in this verse are “the Sacred Writings”, which is the Old Testament.
So can you please explain how the OT can “instruct” anyone “for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ”, because I can’t find any such instructions in the OT (I can find any reference to “Jesus Christ” in the OT, let alone anything about salvation through having faith in him).Regarding 2Tim 3:16, by “All Scripture”, Paul is referring to “the Sacred Writings” (v.15), which is the Old Testament. So, can you please provide an example of how the OT is “profitable” to Christians for
(a) “doctrine”;
(b) “correction”.

Furthermore, “training in righteousness” and “every good work” refer to works of the law of Moses, so how does this relate to “salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” (v.15)? Doesn’t Paul tells us in Gal 2 that no man is justified by “works of the law”?

yet peter called pauls writings scripture.
Sorry man, your arguments fall flat on their face

and by the way, if the OT was able to make us complete in Christ, that means we do not even need the NT, let alone any of your churches other writings, which are not even inspired writings of God

when you have to Go outside the word of God to support your doctrines. Your doctrines are false. Because anything that can not be proven in the word should be ignored

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Neither could I.

Yet you do

 

[Truther]

According to you, if I call my biological father, “Father”, I have disobeyed Jesus, for He said, “call no man your father upon the earth” (Matt 23:9).

Did the Holy Spirit inspire you to come up with this interpretation? If so, the Holy Spirit must be an idiot!

You missed it

Jesus was referring to "fathers" as in "lords and masters".

You are denying Jesus and disqualifying HIS specific command.

You call these men in robes. "father", instead of "brother", directly disobeying Jesus and using bio dads as an excuse.

How dishonest to not look at the context....



7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

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

 

[Enoch111]

I love this stuff - it downright hilarious! Seriously, some folks are so gullible - it's kinda disturbing what they're willing to believe.

Facts are facts. And you should be annoyed with your clerics for adopting pagan symbols and rituals.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Facts are facts. And you should be annoyed with your clerics for adopting pagan symbols and rituals.

In one of my posts I quote the Scripture where it says that God deliberately sends a delusion on those who adamantly choose to be unbelievers. I just wonder that this might be the case with many of those who stoutly defend RCC doctrine in the face of proof that much of it is fraudulent. I wonder if because they are so stuck in their false religion and adamant that they are not going to consider any alternative but to stay with a fraudulent religious "synagogue", that God makes the delusion stick so fast that only a specific work of the Holy Spirit will dislodge it, making any attempt to persuade them through Scripture, history and logic fruitless.

 

[RogerDC]

This Part

Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

So much ignorance.

So according to you, Jesus is against the existence of leaders in the Church? If so, why was the early Church led by the apostles and later have bishops?

The following passages clearly demonstrate that the Church has leaders?:
“But we beg you brethren, to respect those who labor among you and who are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly …” (1Thess 5:12-13);

”Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching” (1Tim 5:17).

 

[RogerDC]

But you don't document your false histories, nor do you give reliable sources, you just assert them. The JW's and the SDA's do the same thing as you.
By "reliable source", I mean any recent Ph.D. in history, secular or Protestant, who would agree with your bigotted myth making. I don't accept so called historians before 1960, because scholarship has matured past 18th century propaganda that flooded the world. What has been discovered in archives all over the world does not support your hate speech. Proper documentation is your enemy.

Asking him to resort to historical scholarship is expecting waaaaaay too much. Scholarship and blind, witless, fundamentalist bigotry can’t exist in the same mind.

 

[RogerDC]

The Greek word used for peter can not mean big Boulder

Jesus spoke Aramaic, and He gave Simon the Aramaic name, Cephas (John 1:42), which means “rock” - it doesn’t mean “little pebble”, as the ignorant contend.

that was the word used for the rock the church would be built on.

How do you explain the fact that if you read a French or Aramaic Bible, the words for “Peter” and “this rock” in Matt 16:18 are exactly the same word?

 

[RogerDC]

The Catholic Church is not based in the Vatican, just the Roman Catholic Church.

You’re wrong. All Catholic Churches recognize the Bishop of Rome - ie, the Pope - as their leader. The Pope and his administration are located in Vatican City.

You quote Paul's letter to the Ephesians and Ephesus was no where near Rome.

So what?

You also quote Paul's letter to the Pastor and elder Timothy (1st Timothy) but he was a pastor and elder in Asia Minor and we have no record that he had any association with the church in Rome.

There’s no record in the Bible of the Catholic Bishop of Sydney, Australia, having any association with the Church in Rome … so according to your logic, that association doesn’t exist.

The fantasy of "papal succession" claims an authority handed down from the Apostle Peter through successive popes, but the office of the " pope" didn't even exist until well after emperor Constantine adopted Christianity as a state religion. There were "bishops" of the city state of Rome, but no such thing as a pope. The head of the Church was acknowledged as Jesus Christ in scripture well after His death and resurrection by the Apostle Paul, not any one man. You can believe what you want, but I prefer to dwell in the land of reality.

You have a wonderful sense of humour; but as for your grasp of historical facts … er, it’s not so wonderful.

 

[RogerDC]

I didnt think a man could put so many lies into one line, but you did, well Done.

What "lies"?

It’s obvious by now that you can’t tell me where I find an infallible interpretation of the Bible. That means your faith is based entirely on your fallible interpretation of the Bible, which is useless. You're stumbling around in a fog of uncertainty; I feel sorry for you.

See this bit

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

they dont agree with you.

Why not?

 

[RogerDC]

Pictures don't lie. They show where the pope's and bishops' mitres were derived from. It is a feature of deluded heretics - they ignore any substantive evidence that exposes their heresy and paganism.

I guess you get sick of being told that you're a genius.

 

[RogerDC]

My church is full of loving people converted out of RCC faith. To them this was sinners performing acts to be saved. When they learnt about love and God's gift, it all changed.

Catholicism is all about God's love and His gift. The former-Catholic you speak of mustn't have been paying attention or didn't understand what they were being taught - let's face it, it's well known that most Catholics who leave the one, true Church and join the pretender-churches are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Such folks are easily fooled and easily misled.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I guess you get sick of being told that you're a genius.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.