Are you saved now?

[mailmandan]

Scripture says the following regarding salvation. There is a past aspect, a present aspect and a future aspect to our salvation.

Past
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, lest anyone should boast.

Present
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Future
Romans 5:9
having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

hope this helps!!!

Amen! Well said. There are 3 tenses to salvation that may get confused by certain individuals. 1. We have been saved from the PENALTY of sin (justification) 2. We are being saved from the POWER of sin (ongoing sanctification) 3. We will be saved from the PRESENCE of sin (glorification)

 

[mailmandan]

real faith always endures. faith without works is dead.

Amen! Saving faith in Christ endures and is not some shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved (past tense, with ongoing present results) through faith.

 

[theefaith]

Wrong.

- The Church is spoken of in the NT as a VISIBLE entity (Matt. 5:14).
- At the Last Supper, Jesus prayed fervently for His Church to remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23).
- Jesus identified His very SELF with His ONE Church (Acts 9:4-5).
- Jesus told the leaders of HIS Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).
- Paul called this ONE Church, the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 2:15).
- He also referred to the Church as the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

Christ's Church is NOT a disjointed gaggle of hidden "Lone Ranger" believers or perpetually-splintering groups as YOU would have us believe.
That is an ANTI-BIBLICAL view.

One
Holy
Catholic and
Apostolic!

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20

 

[DNB]

We put our faith in CHRIST, who has given HIS Church Supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

HIS Church isn't a mere "denomination". it is the Body of Christ (1 Col. 18).
It is the original tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter.

Your rejection of the Church's God-given Authority speaks volumes about your UN-Biblical, "Lone Ranger" brand of Christianity . . .

Chose your rhetoric, was the splintering an invariable outcome due to the tyranny and abuse of the Church, or defiant and rebellious renegades who refuse to conform to sound doctrine? I chose the former, unequivocally.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Chose your rhetoric, was the splintering an invariable outcome due to the tyranny and abuse of the Church, or defiant and rebellious renegades who refuse to conform to sound doctrine? I chose the former, unequivocally.

It was BOTH.

There were some bad guys in the Church hierarchy - but rather than work to truly "Reform" the church - Luther, Zwingili, Calvin, et al chose to break off and create their OWN sects with their OWN doctrines. this is evident by the different teachings of each of the so-called "Reformers".

You guys would have more of a case if you hadn't splintered off into so many directions based on the personal interpretations of each of these men. But this man-made travesty continues to splinter today to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to have been "led" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

 

[DNB]

It was BOTH.

There were some bad guys in the Church hierarchy - but rather than work to truly "Reform" the church - Luther, Zwingili, Calvin, et al chose to break off and create their OWN sects with their OWN doctrines. this is evident by the different teachings of each of the so-called "Reformers".

You guys would have more of a case if you hadn't splintered off into so many directions based on the personal interpretations of each of these men. But this man-made travesty continues to splinter today to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to have been "led" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

Very good point. That's true, that fact that Protestantism is 100x more divisive and factioned than Catholicism or the Eastern churches, does rather incriminate them to the point of questioning, were they rebels without a cause?
No, Luther desired reconciliation by first, as you know, posting his 95 thesis. He was looking for discussion and debate, in order to rectify a Church that he was devotedly part of. The rest, you know how it goes. But, who can deny Luther's protest, i.e. inquisitions, indulgences and crusades, infallibility, etc...?
I do not have an explanation as to why Catholics appear to be more united than protestants. But, one thing that I have learned and am thoroughly convicted of, is that God's Word is extremely difficult to render faithfully. To the point that the minute that I hear anyone say otherwise, I deem them as incompetent (tried, tested and true). Thus, I expect controversy. To what degree, ...if many are called, but few chosen, then maybe to a large degree?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Very good point. That's true, that fact that Protestantism is 100x more divisive and factioned than Catholicism or the Eastern churches, does rather incriminate them to the point of questioning, were they rebels without a cause?
No, Luther desired reconciliation by first, as you know, posting his 95 thesis. He was looking for discussion and debate, in order to rectify a Church that he was devotedly part of. The rest, you know how it goes. But, who can deny Luther's protest, i.e. inquisitions, indulgences and crusades, infallibility, etc...?
I do not have an explanation as to why Catholics appear to be more united than protestants. But, one thing that I have learned and am thoroughly convicted of, is that God's Word is extremely difficult to render faithfully. To the point that the minute that I hear anyone say otherwise, I deem them as incompetent (tried, tested and true). Thus, I expect controversy. To what degree, ...if many are called, but few chosen, then maybe to a large degree?

Apparently, you've never actually READ Luther's 95 Theses.
Not ALL of them are gripes. SOME of them are actually in agreement with the Church.

However, Luther quickly got full of himself - not only inventing doctrines, but ridiculing the Church. Sola Scriptura is NOWHERE supported by Scripture, as it is a self-defeating principle. Luther removed the Seven Deuterocanonical Books, thereby aligning himself with the SECOND century POST-Christ, POST-Temple rabbi and FALSE Prophet, Akiva who proclaimed a FALSE Christ (Simon Kohkbar) during the 2nd Jewish Revolt.

He wanted to remove MORE Books from the New Testament, including James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as "The Epistle of Straw" because of its CATHOLIC emphasis on faith and works. Had it not been for the pleading of his contemporaries like Philip Melanchton - YOUR Bible would be A LOT thinner than it already is.

As I stated earlier - it didn't take long for Luther to become filled with spiritual pride . . .
“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”

“Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors’."

“I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have never tried it."

And finally, he admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

So DON'T tell me that YOU don't follow men when YOUR Bible is NOT the same one Jesus studied from - based on the decision of a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) in the 2nd century . . .

 

[DNB]

Apparently, you've never actually READ Luther's 95 Theses.
Not ALL of them are gripes. SOME of them are actually in agreement with the Church.

However, Luther quickly got full of himself - not only inventing doctrines, but ridiculing the Church. Sola Scriptura is NOWHERE supported by Scripture, as it is a self-defeating principle. Luther removed the Seven Deuterocanonical Books, thereby aligning himself with the SECOND century POST-Christ, POST-Temple rabbi and FALSE Prophet, Akiva who proclaimed a FALSE Christ (Simon Kohkbar) during the 2nd Jewish Revolt.

He wanted to remove MORE Books from the New Testament, including James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as "The Epistle of Straw" because of its CATHOLIC emphasis on faith and works. Had it not been for the pleading of his contemporaries like Philip Melanchton - YOUR Bible would be A LOT thinner than it already is.

As I stated earlier - it didn't take long for Luther to become filled with spiritual pride . . .
“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”

“Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors’."

“I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have never tried it."

And finally, he admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

So DON'T tell me that YOU don't follow men when YOUR Bible is NOT the same one Jesus studied from - based on the decision of a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) in the 2nd century . . .

For crying out loud BOL, you have an uncanny ability to appear as though you're refuting my position, but yet, you actually support it?
Yes, Luther had some conciliatory points in his thesis, which is why I emphasized his initial desire and efforts for unity - in many ways he was an extremely ardent Catholic, as you know.
But, don't even dare try to accuse a single protestant of arrogance, for you will never come close to the deceit, abuse and tyranny of your beloved Catholic Church. Out of your own mouth, read your history - without the deluded bias that is so inherent in you.

The best textual critical scholars in the world deny the inspiration of the deutero-canonical books, as should you, and your secular based church called Catholicism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

For crying out loud BOL, you have an uncanny ability to appear as though you're refuting my position, but yet, you actually support it?
Yes, Luther had some conciliatory points in his thesis, which is why I emphasized his initial desire and efforts for unity - in many ways he was an extremely ardent Catholic, as you know.
But, don't even dare try to accuse a single protestant of arrogance, for you will never come close to the deceit, abuse and tyranny of your beloved Catholic Church. Out of your own mouth, read your history - without the deluded bias that is so inherent in you.

The best textual critical scholars in the world deny the inspiration of the deutero-canonical books, as should you, and your secular based church called Catholicism.

The entire Church hierarchy wasn't "arrogant" or "wicked" or "wrong". There were SOME who were - like Johann Tetzel, who went around the German countryside selling Indulgences. This was an ABUSE and was NEVER sanctioned by the Church.

As for your final claim - only Protestant scholars deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books because they have a dog in the fight.
To accept them would be unthinkable, as they would have to agree with the Catholic Church on the Canon of Scripture. This was one of the BASIC tenets of the Protestant Revolt.

As I have shown in previous posts - the Deuterocanonicals are referenced and alluded to some 200 times in the New Testament.
I gave you two iron-clad examples, for which you have NO intelligent response - other than simple denials.

 

[DNB]

The entire Church hierarchy wasn't "arrogant" or "wicked" or "wrong". There were SOME who were - like Johann Tetzel, who went around the German countryside selling Indulgences. This was an ABUSE and was NEVER sanctioned by the Church.

As for your final claim - only Protestant scholars deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books because they have a dog in the fight.
To accept them would be unthinkable, as they would have to agree with the Catholic Church on the Canon of Scripture. This was one of the BASIC tenets of the Protestant Revolt.

As I have shown in previous posts - the Deuterocanonicals are referenced and alluded to some 200 times in the New Testament.
I gave you two iron-clad examples, for which you have NO intelligent response - other than simple denials.

Tetzel was entirely sanctioned by the church, the money collected went to build St. Peters Cathedral. And in the past, to fund the crusades before Tetzel. Indulgences are still part of Roman church practice.
No, not SOME were abusive, the 'vicars of Christ' were, the nastiest most wicked men who lived at the time. not SOME, but the leaders, those in the highest seats of power, the most ostentatious, avaricious, ignoble and anti-Christian men ever. Have you ever heard of the Borgias, utterly despicable.
Half of your popes paid for their tenure, and murdered those who accused them of simony.
Quit deluding yourself with fallacies, embellishments and unsubstantiated claims. Just admit the truth.

 

[Taken]

Are you saved now?
OP ^

Absolutely...Yes!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[theefaith]

Chose your rhetoric, was the splintering an invariable outcome due to the tyranny and abuse of the Church, or defiant and rebellious renegades who refuse to conform to sound doctrine? I chose the former, unequivocally.

That’s not what Paul and the Bible say
2 Tim 4:3
The church is a kingdom and therefore is authoritarian and the Bible demands your obedience and submission!

rom 1:5 heb 13:17

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you

1 John 2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

That makes Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Tetzel was entirely sanctioned by the church, the money collected went to build St. Peters Cathedral. And in the past, to fund the crusades before Tetzel. Indulgences are still part of Roman church practice.
No, not SOME were abusive, the 'vicars of Christ' were, the nastiest most wicked men who lived at the time. not SOME, but the leaders, those in the highest seats of power, the most ostentatious, avaricious, ignoble and anti-Christian men ever. Have you ever heard of the Borgias, utterly despicable.
Half of your popes paid for their tenure, and murdered those who accused them of simony.
Quit deluding yourself with fallacies, embellishments and unsubstantiated claims. Just admit the truth.

As usual - the EASIEST part about debating with YOU is the fact that you always have to resort to lying because you have NO case.

First of all - Johann Tetzel was not "entirely sanctioned" by the Church to sell Indulgences. He wasn't even PARTIALLY sanctioned. It was an abuse. There was NEVER an edict, decree or declaration that sanctioned this abuse.
When you can produce one - then SHOW me.

Finally - I already conceded that there were some bad people in the Church hierarchy - but that has been the case since the BEGINNING when Jesus chose Judas. Whether it was a bad Pope or a bad Priest or Bishop - you can point to ANY Christian group and pluck out corrupt people.
It's human nature that there are bad people.

YOU should be thankful that YOUR sins aren't listed publicly in the internet . . .

 

[DNB]

That’s not what Paul and the Bible say
2 Tim 4:3
The church is a kingdom and therefore is authoritarian and the Bible demands your obedience and submission!

rom 1:5 heb 13:17

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you

1 John 2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

That makes Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

Paul & John, yes, absolutely! But, all those that came after them, don't even try to tell me that they are acting under the auspices of God.

 

[DNB]

As usual - the EASIEST part about debating with YOU is the fact that you always have to resort to lying because you have NO case.

First of all - Johann Tetzel was not "entirely sanctioned" by the Church to sell Indulgences. He wasn't even PARTIALLY sanctioned. It was an abuse. There was NEVER an edict, decree or declaration that sanctioned this abuse.
When you can produce one - then SHOW me.

Finally - I already conceded that there were some bad people in the Church hierarchy - but that has been the case since the BEGINNING when Jesus chose Judas. Whether it was a bad Pope or a bad Priest or Bishop - you can point to ANY Christian group and pluck out corrupt people.
It's human nature that there are bad people.

YOU should be thankful that YOUR sins aren't listed publicly in the internet . . .

Tetzel was raising money to build St Peters Cathedral, so stop the lies and nonsense - you're desperate and you know it.
It was your leaders for several centuries that were corrupt - those who established tradition and dogma. Get serious, and quit evading the issue at hand. When the leaders are corrupt, how much more the children (Matthew 10:25)

 

[theefaith]

Augustine?

matt 28:19 behold (miracle) I am with you ( the apostles) until the end, so apostles have to be here until the end

 

[theefaith]

Moses’s successors are just men, why obey them?

Matt 23 why does Jesus say to obey the successors of Moses?

The successors of Moses sit in the chair of Moses having the authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Matt 23 and Jesus commanded them to be obeyed! Then the kingdom was taken from them matt 21:43 and given to Peter, Matt 16:18 the apostles, Matt 18:18 and their successors with the authority of the keys and the power to bind and lose!

 

[theefaith]

Lk 10:16 Jn 13:20

 

[theefaith]

Tetzel was raising money to build St Peters Cathedral, so stop the lies and nonsense - you're desperate and you know it.
It was your leaders for several centuries that were corrupt - those who established tradition and dogma. Get serious, and quit evading the issue at hand. When the leaders are corrupt, how much more the children (Matthew 10:25)

Tradition and dogma are biblical and revealed by Christ Jude 1:3

 

[theefaith]

They did not sell indulgences either