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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Fallible Pope makes infallible statements?

Oxymoron
Were the prophets fallible? Of course they were, so how did they utter the infallible words of God?

Were the Bible writers fallible? Of course they were, so how did they write the infallible words of God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Were the prophets fallible? Of course they were, so how did they utter the infallible words of God?

Were the Bible writers fallible? Of course they were, so how did they write the infallible words of God?
The Pope is like the OT Prophets?

The Pope is like the writers of the Bible?

The foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is still being built by the Popes?

Sounds like a fishy new foundation to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r1xlx

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wish it was as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved. If it was that simple the bible would be A LOT shorter....

Page 1 of the Bible: Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.
Page 2 of the Bible: The End
You mean “the gentiles upon whom my name is called”....water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, it is that simple for why little children are free to come to Him for all they can do is trust the Lord by taking Him at His word. Mark 10:13-15

Now that we have been reconciled to God thru Jesus Christ by believing in Him, that foundation is laid, that seal of adoption is forever, but how we build on that foundation will be judged as per 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 on whether or not we are received as vessels unto honor in His House to participate of the firstfruits of the resurrection OR we are cut off ( denied ) and be resurrected after the great tribulation as vessels unto dishonor in His House.

How we live this reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ will be judged in when and how the saved believers will be resurrected as.
So it looks like we agree that it is not as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved (which is what you originally alleged). I agree with you that we must build upon that foundation.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You mean “the gentiles upon whom my name is called”....water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
Hi Truther,

I don't "mean" anything by it.....I was only responding to Enow sooooo maybe you should as him?
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Pope is like the OT Prophets?

The Pope is like the writers of the Bible?

The foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is still being built by the Popes?

Sounds like a fishy new foundation to me.
Hi Truther,

Was the Protestant movement, which started 500 years ago, built upon the foundation of the Apostles?

Curious Mary
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Truther,

Was the Protestant movement, which started 500 years ago, built upon the foundation of the Apostles?

Curious Mary
No, it was mostly RCC with a little modification.

Any church must be completely free from RCC doctrine to qualify for pure doctrine.

Folks must drop how they think completely, start over by obeying Acts 2:38 for themselves, then obey the Epistles in their entirety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r1xlx

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Truther,

I don't "mean" anything by it.....I was only responding to Enow sooooo maybe you should as him?
It fine.

I just wanted you to think about the use of the name of Jesus Christ.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I was citing Billy Graham as another example of a saint being given accolades for why no saint should seek that position, but he can't avoid it because his altar call is an apostate calling; meaning the opposite of what he preached the gospel about in how we are all saved, for why he was given credit because he led them all to make that commitment to follow Him in keeping that commitment for the assurance of salvation. Billy preached the gospel but did an about face when he gave that altar call whereby commitkeepers are laboring in unbelief for by that commitment no flesh shall be justified for by that commitment is the knowledge of sin. That is not living by faith in Him and all His promises to us to help us to follow Him when they look to themselves in resorting to their own power in keeping that commitment to gain the assurance of salvation.

BINGO.

And I cite the Pope as another example of a saint being given accolades even though he doesn't seek them.
He is the Servant of the servants of God.
I'm sure you did when his organization made a promise to Catholics not to convert any Catholics away from their denomination. Even former Catholics were encouraged to go back to their Catholic Church after having made that "commitment to follow Christ" for the assurance of their own salvation.

Think of what is involved in fanfare. Then you know where they both went wrong.
It's "wrong" to tell a Catholic to go back to their faith??
That's just another stupid anti-Catholic remark - and yet another reason I don't take people like you seriously . . .
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, it was mostly RCC with a little modification.

Any church must be completely free from RCC doctrine to qualify for pure doctrine.

Folks must drop how they think completely, start over by obeying Acts 2:38 for themselves, then obey the Epistles in their entirety.
Thank you Truther.

So your theory is that any church that is completely free of the doctrine of the Trinity, baptism being necessary for salvation, the Real Presence in communion, anointing of the sick, marriage, etc. then that church is the true church started by Christ and the Apostles?

Wow....you have elimintated almost all Christian doctrines. Which Church meets your criteria?

Curious Mary
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You mean “the gentiles upon whom my name is called”....water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
Matt. 28:19-20
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Best to always obey Christ . . .
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matt. 28:19-20
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Best to always obey Christ . . .
What is that specific, singular name?
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you Truther.

So your theory is that any church that is completely free of the doctrine of the Trinity, baptism being necessary for salvation, the Real Presence in communion, anointing of the sick, marriage, etc. then that church is the true church started by Christ and the Apostles?

Wow....you have elimintated almost all Christian doctrines. Which Church meets your criteria?

Curious Mary
Case in point, a sinner must pass through Acts 2:38 to qualify for any church doctrine whatsoever.
If they skip Acts 2:38, they are automatically disqualified, and are reading the saints mail illegally.
Then after finally giving up and obeying Acts 2:38, they may graduate to the Epistles, which provides doctrine.
then, you will find that by only using the Bible and refusing all commentary, that Jesus has a God etc.
Then you will be at odds with modern day Christendom but lined up with the 1st century, pre-commentary, Apostles doctrines.
Gotta start from scratch.....
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Case in point, a sinner must pass through Acts 2:38 to qualify for any church doctrine whatsoever.
If they skip Acts 2:38, they are automatically disqualified, and are reading the saints mail illegally.
Then after finally giving up and obeying Acts 2:38, they may graduate to the Epistles, which provides doctrine.
then, you will find that by only using the Bible and refusing all commentary, that Jesus has a God etc.
Then you will be at odds with modern day Christendom but lined up with the 1st century, pre-commentary, Apostles doctrines.
Gotta start from scratch.....
1st century Christians didn't have Bibles, so "starting from scratch" is problematic.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now Truther may be tempted to offer two possible responses:
1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and
2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that
a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and
b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose."

This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, Truther only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities:
first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance
then being replaced by the Scriptures
,
which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RogerDC

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
"Impeccable" (living without sinning) does not mean the same thing as "infallible", (teaching without error). I hope that polemical nonsense has been cleared up.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1st century Christians didn't have Bibles, so "starting from scratch" is problematic.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now Truther may be tempted to offer two possible responses:
1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and
2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that
a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose."
This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, Truther only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
Right. They did not have the NT.
They were the examples of the NT.
The only examples we have.
We must follow them.

Our Bible is written about them.

Starting from scratch is starting with them, not anyone else.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is that specific, singular name?
And that's where your heresy falls off the tracks.

Jesus didn't say:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the specific, singular names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, . . .”

He said:
"... baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT, . . ."

YOUR problem - apart from being woefully-ignorant of Scripture - is that you are ALSO ignorant of history and the use of language.
Therein lies your complete confusion . . .
 

r1xlx

Active Member
Feb 26, 2020
198
36
28
76
HESSLE
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Hi Truther,

Was the Protestant movement, which started 500 years ago, built upon the foundation of the Apostles?

Curious Mary
Marymog, The Protestant church was started by Jesus 2,000 years ago before your friend Satan infiltrated it and introduced worship of Ishtar and Tammuz and all ridiculous idols, symbols, pomp, ceremony and false doctrines.
And of course you Catholics gloat about killing Jesus by having crucifixes of him hanging outside your churches.
The cross is empty while you Catholics keep it full of shame.
 
Last edited:

r1xlx

Active Member
Feb 26, 2020
198
36
28
76
HESSLE
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
1st century Christians didn't have Bibles, so "starting from scratch" is problematic.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now Truther may be tempted to offer two possible responses:
1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and
2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that
a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and
b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose."

This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, Truther only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities:
first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance
then being replaced by the Scriptures
,
which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
Popey may be head of your Satanic church but he sure ain't head of mine.
Popey prays to idols of Ishtar and Tammuz.
Popey protects pedophiles and war criminals.
Popey worships Lucifer.

And quote: 'Holy Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error!' My my, you really drank the Kool-aid didn't you.
Popey is Satan in the flesh.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Case in point, a sinner must pass through Acts 2:38 to qualify for any church doctrine whatsoever.
If they skip Acts 2:38, they are automatically disqualified, and are reading the saints mail illegally.
Then after finally giving up and obeying Acts 2:38, they may graduate to the Epistles, which provides doctrine.
then, you will find that by only using the Bible and refusing all commentary, that Jesus has a God etc.
Then you will be at odds with modern day Christendom but lined up with the 1st century, pre-commentary, Apostles doctrines.
Gotta start from scratch.....
ALL Baptized Christians have heeded Acts 2:38.
YOUR confusion stems from your denial of the Triune Godhead.