Rome vs Melchizedek

[BreadOfLife]

 

[epostle1]

I believe that Barack Obama was our president for 8 years - but I never had faith in him.
Simply believing in something is NOT faith.

This is an important point.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief Romans 14:22
James 2:19, to assurance Acts 17:31, and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3), Titus 2:10. Of key importance is Galatians 5:6 which refers to “faith working by charity.” In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or “faith formed by charity.” The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or “faith unformed by charity.” This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:1, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone.

However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Because “faith” is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term “faith” in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)

Given the different usages of the term “faith” in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “faith formed by charity” than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “intellectual belief.” In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of “the faith,” meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13. (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad “faith” is taken to mean “formed faith” then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term “faith” in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.
One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”...

...I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent’s Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the “faith alone” formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of of justification . . . let him be anathema.”

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term “faith” in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.
So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.
by James Akin
read more here

 

[Stranger]

And there you go again dodging the question.

I asked you plainly:
Do the demons in James 2:19 have faith in God??

According to YOU faith is simply believing - but you have YET to provide a verse that supports this false notion.
You keep throwing Eph. 2-9 out there which says that salvation is by faith - but it doesn't say that faith is simply "believing." Nor, does it say "Faith alone".

I believe that Barack Obama was our president for 8 years - but I never had faith in him.
Simply believing in something is NOT faith.

As for Matt. 23:37 - it has everything to do with faith and salvation.
If it doesn't - can you explain to me what it DOES mean??

And I told you plainly concerning the demons belief or faith. Read my post #51

(John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

(Matt. 23:37) is Jesus lamenting over Israel's, Jerusalem's, rejection of Him as the Messiah. It in no way describes any loss of salvation of a believer in Christ.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

And I told you plainly concerning the demons belief or faith. Read my post #51

It was a plainly silly reply. The demons have intellectual ascent,(faith) a different sense of faith and no Protestant would say all you need is intellectual ascent to be justified. If you want to repeatedly make a fool of yourself and insist the demons don't believe, that's fine by me.

(John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

You're not being fair. Has every believer had the privilege of talking face to face with Christ right after his resurrection? And having fellowship directly with the Apostles? This is an unrealistic assumption.

“Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.”

(Matt. 23:37) is Jesus lamenting over Israel's, Jerusalem's, rejection of Him as the Messiah. It in no way describes any loss of salvation of a believer in Christ.

Rejecting Him in no way describes any loss of salvation? Whether or not the Jews lost their salvation as a result of rejecting him is debatable, but it is not an argument for assurance either.

"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

 

[BreadOfLife]

And I told you plainly concerning the demons belief or faith. Read my post #51

(John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

(Matt. 23:37) is Jesus lamenting over Israel's, Jerusalem's, rejection of Him as the Messiah. It in no way describes any loss of salvation of a believer in Christ.

Stranger

Uhhh, no - in post #51, you DODGED the question again. You simply agreed that the demons "believed".
I didn't need YOU to tell me that because James already said it (James 2:19).

I have asked you FOUR times now - and I will ask you again:
Do the demons in James 2:19 have FAITH in God??

I have shown you by my example about Barack Obama in my last post that to "believe" does NOT necessarily mean that you have "Faith".
This is something that you will have to take into consideration before you answer the question above.

 

[Stranger]

Uhhh, no - in post #51, you DODGED the question again. You simply agreed that the demons "believed".
I didn't need YOU to tell me that because James already said it (James 2:19).

I have asked you FOUR times now - and I will ask you again:
Do the demons in James 2:19 have FAITH in God??

I have shown you by my example about Barack Obama in my last post that to "believe" does NOT necessarily mean that you have "Faith".
This is something that you will have to take into consideration before you answer the question above.

Please pay attention. In post #83 I plainly said that in post #51 I was speaking of the demons 'belief' or 'faith'. And, I didn't just 'agree' that demons believed. I gave explanation. Which you avoid. I wonder why?

I haven't dodged anything. Demons can believe in God, have faith in God, but it doesn't matter. There is no salvation offered to them to lose. Ask me again.

Now, what do you say to (John 11:25-26)? Which you failed to even comment on.

Your example of Obama is not legitimate. That is akin to asking if one believes that Chirst existed for 30 years. So? God does not ask whether one believes that Christ existised on earth for 30 years. God asks " whom say ye that I am". (Matt. 16:15) So, if you're going to give an example, at least get it right.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

Please pay attention. In post #83 I plainly said that in post #51 I was speaking of the demons 'belief' or 'faith'. And, I didn't just 'agree' that demons believed. I gave explanation. Which you avoid. I wonder why?

I haven't dodged anything. Demons can believe in God, have faith in God, but it doesn't matter. There is no salvation offered to them to lose. Ask me again.

Now, what do you say to (John 11:25-26)? Which you failed to even comment on.

Your example of Obama is not legitimate. That is akin to asking if one believes that Chirst existed for 30 years. So? God does not ask whether one believes that Christ existised on earth for 30 years. God asks " whom say ye that I am". (Matt. 16:15) So, if you're going to give an example, at least get it right.

Stranger

There are two types of predestination: to grace and to glory. Faith alone Protestants collapse the two into one, and it isn't biblical.

Rom. 11:20-23 – in expounding on Jesus’ teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they don’t persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be “cut off”). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the “once saved, always saved” position.

 

[Stranger]

There are two types of predestination: to grace and to glory. Faith alone Protestants collapse the two into one, and it isn't biblical.

Rom. 11:20-23 – in expounding on Jesus’ teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they don’t persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be “cut off”). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the “once saved, always saved” position.

Not hardly. The verses in question, (Rom.11:20-23), speak to the nation Israel and the Gentiles. It is not to the individual believer, though individual believers, or non-believers will make up that nation Israel and the Gentiles. You have to see it as Israel as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole.

Israel was once the place where the salvation of God was found. But then the nation became composed more of individual non-believers than believers. And it became an apostate Israel. Thus the nation was set aside because of unbelief. (Rom.11:20) "Well; because of unbelief they (Israel) were broken off and thou (Gentiles) standest by faith...". {parenthesis mine}

Israel as a nation is broken off because of 'unbelief'. The Gentiles stand because of 'belief' But there are some Jews who still believe. (Rom. 11:5) And there are plenty of Gentiles that don't believe. Ever since 586 B.C. the glory of God departed from Israel. In first century A.D. the gospel of Grace goes to the Gentiles. In 70 A.D. the Jews temple is destroyed. But there is yet a future day when Israel will return as a nation back to God. (Rom.11:25) "...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in."

And just like Israel was cut off due to unbelief, so also the cutting off of the Gentiles will coincide with their unbelief. And God will once again be working with Israel. (Rom.11:22) "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them (Israel) which fell, severity; but toward thee, (Gentiles) goodness, if thou {Gentiles} continue in his goodness: otherwise thou (Gentiles) also shalt be cut off. {parenthesis mine}

Thus no devastation here for once saved always saved.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Please pay attention. In post #83 I plainly said that in post #51 I was speaking of the demons 'belief' or 'faith'. And, I didn't just 'agree' that demons believed. I gave explanation. Which you avoid. I wonder why?

I haven't dodged anything. Demons can believe in God, have faith in God, but it doesn't matter. There is no salvation offered to them to lose. Ask me again.

Now, what do you say to (John 11:25-26)? Which you failed to even comment on.

Your example of Obama is not legitimate. That is akin to asking if one believes that Chirst existed for 30 years. So? God does not ask whether one believes that Christ existised on earth for 30 years. God asks " whom say ye that I am". (Matt. 16:15) So, if you're going to give an example, at least get it right.

Stranger

First of all - my example of Obama is spot-on because it addresses simple belief - and true faith.
James goes on for an entire chapter (ch. 2) talking about the importance of our obedience and NOT just our "belief". The demons that "believe" in verse 19 don't have faith - they simply believe.

As for John 11:25-26 - this is speaking of FAITH, in context.
How do I know this?? Because the Bible cannot contradict itself. ALL Scripture must harmonize - and you cannot harmonize your perverted views on Faith with the context of Scripture.

You keep posting Eph. 2:9 as "proof" that we are saved by simply "believing".
First of all - it doesn't say that. Secondly, that view doesn't harmonize with many other passages like Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-16.

The cherry-picking that you do to Scripture simply misrepresents to it.

 

[Stranger]

First of all - my example of Obama is spot-on because it addresses simple belief - and true faith.
James goes on for an entire chapter (ch. 2) talking about the importance of our obedience and NOT just our "belief". The demons that "believe" in verse 19 don't have faith - they simply believe.

As for John 11:25-26 - this is speaking of FAITH, in context.
How do I know this?? Because the Bible cannot contradict itself. ALL Scripture must harmonize - and you cannot harmonize your perverted views on Faith with the context of Scripture.

You keep posting Eph. 2:9 as "proof" that we are saved by simply "believing".
First of all - it doesn't say that. Secondly, that view doesn't harmonize with many other passages like Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-16.

The cherry-picking that you do to Scripture simply misrepresents to it.

Your example of 'Obama' was a tragedy. It doesn't work.

As for (John 11:25-26), belief is the key. That is in context. You are the one out of context.

I don't keep posting (Eph. 1:9). But, apparently it is a burr under your saddle. And it should be. If (John 11:25-26) shows that belief is necessary for salvation, and then (Eph. 2:8-9) shows that faith and not works is necessary for salvation, that means, faith and belief are the same.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

So, it's the WORD "Easter" that you have a problem with??
To what "fertility rites" are you referring?? The Catholic Church engages in "fertility rites"?? Is that what you're saying??

Anyway - if a WORD is not in the Bible - this doesn't meant that it is not taught.
The word "Incarnation" is not in the Bible.
The doctrine IS taught.in the Bible.

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.
The doctrine IS taught.in the Bible.

The word "Bible" is not in the Bible.
The word came AFTER the compilation of the Canon but it doesn't mean that it is "evil".

This is a pretty tortured way to avoid the truth, seems to me. So iow if God Himself came down and told you "Passover," changing it to Easter would be fine--which btw was in the Bible, as Ishtar, or even Oester works--the point is the obvious fertility symbology. Well, obvious if you are not blind.

This is "see and not see," don't you think?

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is a pretty tortured way to avoid the truth, seems to me. So iow if God Himself came down and told you "Passover," changing it to Easter would be fine--which btw was in the Bible, as Ishtar, or even Oester works--the point is the obvious fertility symbology. Well, obvious if you are not blind.

This is "see and not see," don't you think?

This is a pretty tortured way to avoid the truth, seems to me. So iow if God Himself came down and told you "Passover," changing it to Easter would be fine--which btw was in the Bible, as Ishtar, or even Oester works--the point is the obvious fertility symbology. Well, obvious if you are not blind.

This is "see and not see," don't you think?

[SIZE=10.5pt]No – it’s ignorant nonsense.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I get really tired of these moronic assaults on Easter by people who haven’t done their homework.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Time for a little history and linguistics lesson:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This entire Easter/Ishtar rubbish is completely unsubstantiated – when you understand how different languages actually work. For your information – MOST of the world uses different variations of the word “Pascha” when speaking of Easter, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word “Pesach”, or Passover.. Some variations include Pasqua, Pascua, Paques, Pasch, etc.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Some philologists say that English word, “Easter” comes from the word "east", referring to the rising of the sun, a metaphor for the Resurrection of Christ (see Malachi 4:2).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]As for Ostern/Easter it is derived from "erstehen", which is the old Teutonic form of "auferstehen/auferstehung" meaning "resurrection". [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Easter does not derive from "Ishtar", who was a Middle Eastern goddess. The word did NOT originate in the Middle East - it is definitely of northern European origin.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]So, you see - in the minds of the educated – Easter is neither a paganb word nor is it a pagan feast.
It is 100% Christian.[/SIZE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your example of 'Obama' was a tragedy. It doesn't work.

As for (John 11:25-26), belief is the key. That is in context. You are the one out of context.

I don't keep posting (Eph. 1:9). But, apparently it is a burr under your saddle. And it should be. If (John 11:25-26) shows that belief is necessary for salvation, and then (Eph. 2:8-9) shows that faith and not works is necessary for salvation, that means, faith and belief are the same.

Stranger

And as I said before - the point YOU keep dodging is that your view doesn't harmonize with many other passages like Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-16.
You've also dodged for Matt. 23:37 , which shows that without our cooperation, salvation is NOT possible. The Jews that Jesus was speaking to BELIEVED in God - but they lacked the FAITH that they needed.

Belief is not enough (James 2:19).
Works are not enough (Eph. 2:9).
Faith = belief AND works (Matt. 25:31-46, James 2:14-16).

[SIZE=12pt]What does[/SIZE] “believing” [SIZE=12pt]mean in the context of the Christian life??[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Obeying his commandments (John 14:15, 15:10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21, James 1:22)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]YOUR problem is that context is NOT your friend . . .[/SIZE]

 

[Stranger]

And as I said before - the point YOU keep dodging is that your view doesn't harmonize with many other passages like Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-16.
You've also dodged for Matt. 23:37 , which shows that without our cooperation, salvation is NOT possible. The Jews that Jesus was speaking to BELIEVED in God - but they lacked the FAITH that they needed.

Belief is not enough (James 2:19).
Works are not enough (Eph. 2:9).
Faith = belief AND works (Matt. 25:31-46, James 2:14-16).

[SIZE=12pt]What does[/SIZE] “believing” [SIZE=12pt]mean in the context of the Christian life??[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Obeying his commandments (John 14:15, 15:10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21, James 1:22)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]YOUR problem is that context is NOT your friend . . .[/SIZE]

My views thus far do harmonize with Scripture. You have yet to show me how (Eph.2:8-9) harmonizes with your theory that the believer can lose their salvation.

(Matt. 25:31-46) is not a judgement of individual believers. It is a judgement of nations. Thus it doesn't prove any loss of salvation to the believer.

(James 2:14-26) is dealing with works as a result of being declared righteous already by God. See again (James 2:21-23) and (Gen. 15:6) See my explanation in post #40, and #51.

Again, (Matt. 23:37) is not dealing with individuals loss of salvation. Jesus is lamenting Israel's rejection of Him.

Actually context is a great friend. Just as I showed you in my post #88, concerning Israel and the Nations in (Rom. 11).

I don't do long lists of Scripture , which are only a smoke screen attempt.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

[SIZE=10.5pt]No – it’s ignorant nonsense.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I get really tired of these moronic assaults on Easter by people who haven’t done their homework.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Time for a little history and linguistics lesson:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This entire Easter/Ishtar rubbish is completely unsubstantiated – when you understand how different languages actually work. For your information – MOST of the world uses different variations of the word “Pascha” when speaking of Easter, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word “Pesach”, or Passover.. Some variations include Pasqua, Pascua, Paques, Pasch, etc.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Some philologists say that English word, “Easter” comes from the word "east", referring to the rising of the sun, a metaphor for the Resurrection of Christ (see Malachi 4:2).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]As for Ostern/Easter it is derived from "erstehen", which is the old Teutonic form of "auferstehen/auferstehung" meaning "resurrection". [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Easter does not derive from "Ishtar", who was a Middle Eastern goddess. The word did NOT originate in the Middle East - it is definitely of northern European origin.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]So, you see - in the minds of the educated – Easter is neither a paganb word nor is it a pagan feast.
It is 100% Christian.[/SIZE]

ah, the educated--who cannot relate rolling eggs and buying bunnies to fertility rites, lol. And gee, just can't quite agree on where the word "Easter" came from. I'll pass on your lesson, ty.

i might point out that you are standing on some railroad tracks, and a train is coming, but i guess you can change your mind when you are ready. Passover will still be there.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ah, the educated--who cannot relate rolling eggs and buying bunnies to fertility rites, lol. And gee, just can't quite agree on where the word "Easter" came from. I'll pass on your lesson, ty.

i might point out that you are standing on some railroad tracks, and a train is coming, but i guess you can change your mind when you are ready. Passover will still be there.

And YOU can prove that rolling eggs, the Easter Bunny and fertility Rites came out of the Catholic Church??
These are secular practices, NOT practices that were started by the Church. Your historical ignorance really knows no bounds . . .

As for Easter Eggs themselves - here's a homework assignment for you:
Where did the practice of painting eggs and eating them on Easter come from?

 

[BreadOfLife]

My views thus far do harmonize with Scripture. You have yet to show me how (Eph.2:8-9) harmonizes with your theory that the believer can lose their salvation.

(Matt. 25:31-46) is not a judgement of individual believers. It is a judgement of nations. Thus it doesn't prove any loss of salvation to the believer.

(James 2:14-26) is dealing with works as a result of being declared righteous already by God. See again (James 2:21-23) and (Gen. 15:6) See my explanation in post #40, and #51.

Again, (Matt. 23:37) is not dealing with individuals loss of salvation. Jesus is lamenting Israel's rejection of Him.

Actually context is a great friend. Just as I showed you in my post #88, concerning Israel and the Nations in (Rom. 11).

I don't do long lists of Scripture , which are only a smoke screen attempt.

Stranger

What a massive perversion of the Word of God.

Matt. 25:31-46 - The teaching of the Sheep and the Goats is about the INDIVIDUAL - not a judgement of "nations."
James 2:14-26 - The teaching on faith and works is about TRUE faith vs. a declared faith.
Matt. 23:37 - This verse is about Jerusalem rejecting the will of God.
Eph.2:8-9 - Has nothing to do with the many teachings on losing salvation - any more than passages about Jesus curing the blind man have to do with verses about Judas stealing money.


YOU don't do "long lists" of Scripture because you cherry-pick instead of reading them in context.

As for your false claim that Christians cannot lose their salvation - try to weasel your way out of the following passages.
Oh, and pay attention to the linguistic implications of Epignosis vs. Oida and Gnosis . . .

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek words for “knowledge” used here are NOT the usual words (oida/gnosis). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (Epignosis) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
This one is self-explanatory - even to a blind person . . .

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God take away somebody’s share of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

 

[bbyrd009]

Christ is our Passover, regardless of how many other Gospels you hear.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Christ is our Passover, regardless of how many other Gospels you hear.

Christ is our Paschal Lamb.
I still want to hear your explanation about how the Catholic Church created the Easter Bunny, egg rolls or fertility rites.

And you dodged my question about Easter eggs.
Is it because you don't know - or because you found out and don't want to be humiliated?

 

[Stranger]

What a massive perversion of the Word of God.

Matt. 25:31-46 - The teaching of the Sheep and the Goats is about the INDIVIDUAL - not a judgement of "nations."
James 2:14-26 - The teaching on faith and works is about TRUE faith vs. a declared faith.
Matt. 23:37 - This verse is about Jerusalem rejecting the will of God.
Eph.2:8-9 - Has nothing to do with the many teachings on losing salvation - any more than passages about Jesus curing the blind man have to do with verses about Judas stealing money.


YOU don't do "long lists" of Scripture because you cherry-pick instead of reading them in context.

As for your false claim that Christians cannot lose their salvation - try to weasel your way out of the following passages.
Oh, and pay attention to the linguistic implications of Epignosis vs. Oida and Gnosis . . .

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek words for “knowledge” used here are NOT the usual words (oida/gnosis). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (Epignosis) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
This one is self-explanatory - even to a blind person . . .

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God take away somebody’s share of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

Concerning (Matt.25:32), " And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another..."
Concerning (James 2:14-26), No problem with it teaching a true faith. But it's a faith the believer already has as proved by the example of Abraham. (James 2:21-23)
Concerning (Matt. 23:37), No problem with it teaching that Jerusalem rejects their Messiah. But it doesn't teach that a believer can lose their salvation.
Concerning (Eph. 2:8-9), If you didn't obtain eternal life by works, then you can't lose it by insufficient works. And (Eph. 2:8-9) are clear that it is by faith, or as (John 11:25-26) says, 'belief'.

I don't do long lists of Scripture because they are a smoke screen.

Concerning (Rom.11:22), I already addressed it. It speaks to Israel and Gentiles. Not the individual believer. (Rom.11:7) "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for...." And (Rom. 11:13) "For I speak to you Gentiles....) See again my post #88.

Concerning (Heb.10:26-27) A warning yes. But not a loss of salvation. Judgement, yes. But not a loss of salvation. The phrase "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" is explained by context, which I know you appreciate. Turn back to (Heb.10:17-18) " And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." So you see, with Jesus Christ there remains no more sacrifice for sins. He is the one and only. No loss of salvation. But certainly a judgement against wilful sin.

Concerning (2Peter 2:20-22), This concerns false prophets and teachers. Context. (2Peter 2:1) " But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you...." They have a knowledge but they are not saved. This is clearly seen in the illustration given in (2Peter 2:22) "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." The sow was still a sow. No change. The dog was still a dog. This is not a picture of a believer. It is a false prophet and teacher.

That's enough for now. I will look at the rest later.

Stranger