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

[mjrhealth]

Living in the past?

Let go of Acts 2:38?

Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is a stumbling block?

Acts 2:38 is Grace..... do you think getting wet is too much effort?

For a man in the desert without water it is, but its not for God. So many selling God Short.

 

[mjrhealth]

See what I just wrote to you in this post...you are missing the whole point.

YES all are invited, not all ( Christians) will pay the price to win Him! That is why I contend that not ALL are in The Bride.
The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

Well so few can see that.

 

[mjrhealth]

You didn't answer my question:
Did Peter LIE when he stated that the the followers of Christ were "living stones" and a "holy priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:5)??

Not that difficult to answer . . .

Hi BOL, still around.. Keep heaping those coals on your head.

We still love you.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

In James 2:24, works justifies because it shows forth the fact that the person's faith is genuine, i.e. that the person has an obedient attitude.

Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Faith is dead without the obedient works. The Bible ties faith and obedience so closely together that faith is a form of obedience. Mark 2:5 Jesus saw their faith and what Jesus saw that is called faith is the works the men did in removing the roof and lowering the sick man down to Him.

Again, no verse says that the faith that saves is just an attitude. A faith that does not obey the will of God is useless, dead.

Before God, a person is justified by faith alone, which is invisible to detection by man, except when the person shows forth their faith by their works.

Man is NOT justified by faith only. The disobedient are not justified therefore faith must include obedience else it is dead is James' point

Justification by works is not before God...it is only before man (Romans 4:2).

Works of Romans 4:2 refers to works of the OT law of Moses. Paul's point is Abraham nor David were justified by the OT law. That law required strict, flawless work in keeping ALL the law perfectly in order to be justified by that law. Neither Abraham nor David were sinlessly perfect, both sinned, were ungodly me. Hence they were not justified by works required by the OT law but by an obedient faith as Paul makes that contrast in Romans 3:28. Nowhere did Paul ever eliminate obedience to GOd to be justified.

And I have never contended that a person with genuine faith will continue in disobedience. What I am contending is that obedient action does not save anyone. Because salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:9).

Obedient attitude does save a man.

What this means is that a person can come to faith, an obedient attitude, and die two minutes later without doing any good works, and still go to heaven. Because we are saved by grace through faith (an obedient attitude) apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

--No verse says faith is just an attitude and nothing more.
--doing good works will not save anyone at anytime. To be saved one must be obedient to the will of God in doing what God says must be done to be saved and God has required obedience in believing (John 8:24) repentance (Luke 13:3) confession (Matthew 10:32-33 baptism (Mark 16:16) and living faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10).

The work is Eph 2:9 eliminates doing works of merit. If one could keep the law perfectly then he would merit his salvation by his perfect sinless works and that is something he could boast about. Obedience to the will of God is not something one can boast about for one will not be perfecrt in his obedience, si the obedient man will still be in need of grace. Salvation is by faithful obedience and grace and not by faith alone or grace alone.

To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

God imputes righteousness apart from works (Romans 4:6).

CONTEXT shows the works of Rpm 4:5-6 refer to the flawless perfect works required by the OT law and does not obedience to the will of God. How can Abraham be one who "worketh not" when in fact Abraham DID DO obedient works per Hebrews 11:8; Hebrews 11:17 and was justified by those obedient works per James? Hence "worketh not" is excluding works required by the law and NOT obedience to God's will. Trying to get Romans 4:5-6 or Eph 2:9 to eliminate obedience creates major contradictions within the pages of the Bible. Just two chapters later Romans 6:16-18 Paul put obeying from the heart BEFORE being freed from sin/justified, that one "obeys UNTO righteousness".

We are regenerated and renewed, "not by works of righteousness which we have done." (Titus 3:5).

Works of righteousness we have done refers to man doing his own righteousness to try and save himself rather than do God's righteousness. God's righteousness requires one to be baptized to be saved. Note how Titus 3:5 contrasts man doing his own righteousness from water baptism, a laver of water, washing of regeneration. Same contrast is clearly seen in Romans 10:3 as to why those Jews were lost "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Those Jews were lost because they were doing their own righteousness/traditions rather than obeying God's righteousness which requires obedience to the gospel of Christ (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8) which those Jews refused to obey. Again the verses show clear contrast between two different kinds or work, one work of man doing his OWN righteousness that does not save and obeying God's righteousness that does save. Faith only-ists refuse to see this clear difference for it undermines Luther's faith only philosophy.[/quote][/quote]

 

[BreadOfLife]

But you have missed my point all together. The goats also call Jesus Lord, but their eyes are on the prize and not tuned in to the heart of Christ.

Shalom

They were disobedient and showed NO love for their neighbor, who is Christ Himself.

That's why they were condemned.

 

[Truther]

For a man in the desert without water it is, but its not for God. So many selling God Short.

Should we eliminate Acts 2:38 because a man in the desert can't find water?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The RCC fathers would never openly admit it. However, it is common knowledge that there was a worry of losing control like all kingdoms have lost control per nepotism.
The RCC fathers cleverly disguised this concern as a holiness issue.
It worked, and they were able to boot out non conformists easily. No sons to take the fathers place in the church....the new appointee is on the way.

Fascinating...
Tom MeadowcroftMar 23rd 2017, 14:56

All governance systems that do not explicitly battle it are prone to nepotism. Just about every absolute ruler in history has tried to dictate that transfer of power should be dynastic. Because genetic links to sons are a deeply unreliable way to find a good ruler, that is a weakness of any dynastic empire. Some of the longest lived empires have fought against the power of nepotism, including the Mamluks in Egypt (not allowed families) and the Ottomans, which while dynastic at the top had a bureaucracy and military staffed by men who were recruited as children and forced to live with no (acknowledged) family, loyal only to the Sultan. The papacy, which has lasted for 2000 years, or in its modern form since Emperor Constantine at least, has largely avoided nepotism through the use of celibacy. The danger of removing celibacy is not the sex itself, but rather the splitting of loyalty between family and the church. Without celibacy, in a generation popes would be appointing their sons as arch-bishops.

Ironically, allowing priests to have sex, but not to marry, might be the best way to encourage the priesthood (that and allowing women, of course), without weakening the papacy. Unfortunately, that would involve changing more than a few other rules. But celibacy has always been about avoiding nepotism and maintaining a meritocracy, and thus a strong leadership, in a system of absolute rule. What ancestral dynasty can claim the length and strength of rule that the papacy can? All non-celibate absolute rule dynasties fall within a few generations, even the most powerful. Look at the Mongol empire of Ghengis and Kublai Khan; broken up starting with Kublai Khan's sons. Celibacy has kept the papacy relatively powerful and strong. Abandoning celibacy would inevitably mean abandoning absolute rule of the pope, or allowing it to become hereditary.

Why Catholic Priests Can't Marry (at Least for Now) | Live Science

Complete and utter ignorant, anti-Catholic nonsense.
The ONLY thing "fascinating" here is how gullible anti-Catholics like yourself can seduced by this kind of garbage . . .

This is PRECISELY the kind of answer I expected from the like of an uninformed and historically-bankrupt mind like yours.
Had you done your homework - you would have discovered that Priestly Celibacy goes back to the early centuries of the Church - BEFORE Christianity was even legal. It was during a time when Christians were still being persecuted by pagan Rome for their faith.

Many of the Early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius also favored celibacy. But at the local Council of Elvira (Spain) (295-302 AD) celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons.

The bottom line is that nobody is forced to become a priest, ergo, no Catholic is "forced" to be celibate.
Those who enter the religious life know very well in advance that this discipline is expected of them.

The problem with anti-Catholics like yourself is that your fairy tales only go back as far as the original anti-Catholics who started these fairy tales - men like Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylons) and Loraine Boettner (Roman Catholicism). These guys didn't do their homework either and their lies spawned all of the garbage that people like YOU willingly swallow as the "truth".

Shame on them - and shame on YOU for not doing your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BOL, still around.. Keep heaping those coals on your head.
We still love you.

Sooooo, does that mean you CAN'T answer the question?
That's what I thought.

Maybe you should check with your online paramilitary cult over at "aggressivechristianity.net" to see how they would answer it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

WRONG.
Scripture indicates that we obtain the love of the Lord through faith (Galatians 3:14, Romans 5:5).

Scripture shows that Love is THE essential element of faith - not a "byproduct" of it (Matt. 25:31:46, 1 Cor. 13:1-13, Gal. 5:6).

We must ask the question: if someone's understanding of the Lord's nature is slightly off, but that same someone has a relationship with Jesus Christ and loves God, will not their faith judge the person who has the details of the Trinity down pat?
1Co 8:1, Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2, And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3, But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Oneness Pentecostals have an advantage over you...they have all received believer's baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...and thus they have all been absolutely promised the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39).

Wrong.

"Oneness" theology isn't "slightly off". It is a flat-out rejection of the revealed nature of God Himself.
You cannot have a "relationship" with Christ when you have invented a completely different Christ altogether.

"Oneness" theology is not only heresy - it's blasphemy . . .

If you will concede that baptism in Jesus' Name was the only method used in the book of Acts, I will concede that baptism was done only by church leaders in holy scripture.

Baptism in "Jesus' name" is Baptism "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - as Jesus commanded in Matt. 28:19.

The fact that you are willing to "haggle" over your doctrines is proof positive that they are MAN MADE.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Bible ties faith and obedience so closely together that faith is a form of obedience.

Truly, Jesus said, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He sent.

He is saying that if you are going to insist that you are going to be saved by works, then the only work that will save you is going to be a simple faith in Jesus Christ.

Again, no verse says that the faith that saves is just an attitude.

No verse says that faith is obedient action, either. In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts such a notion.

Man is NOT justified by faith only.

Before God, he is. Before man, who cannot see an invisible faith (while the Lord can see the invisible), we must see works of faith in order to determine that a man has genuine faith.

Works of Romans 4:2 refers to works of the OT law of Moses.

It doesn't. It refers to works, period.

Hence they were not justified by works required by the OT law but by an obedient faith

All I'm saying...that faith is an obedient attitude. I think that you are arguing just to argue; because I have come over to your side to a very great extent in order to find agreement; and yet you refuse to agree with the reality of the truth.

--No verse says faith is just an attitude and nothing more.

No verse says that faith is obedient action. In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts such a notion.

-doing good works will not save anyone at anytime. To be saved one must be obedient to the will of God

Is it not works to be obedient to the will of God?

I am contending faithfully here, that obedient action is the sure result of a living and saving faith if the person has time and opportunity to do the good works that result out of a living and saving faith. But a man is not saved through the obedient action, but by the faith that brings about the action.

If you are going to continue to argue otherwise, I think that you need to take some scissors and cut Ephesians 2:8-9 out of your Bible. Because this is what you have effectively done in your theology. But keep Revelation 22:19 in mind.

The work is Eph 2:9 eliminates doing works of merit.

Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about works period; not just works of merit.

Obedience to the will of God is not something one can boast about for one will not be perfect in his obedience, so the obedient man will still be in need of grace. Salvation is by faithful obedience and grace and not by faith alone or grace alone.

If obedience is in any way required, then perfect obedience is required, and grace is not going to take you the rest of the way. But if you are saved by grace, then you are wholly saved by grace. See Romans 11:5-6 (kjv).

Trying to get Romans 4:5-6 or Eph 2:9 to eliminate obedience creates major contradictions within the pages of the Bible.

There is no contradiction in my mind. Consider that works don't save; but that if someone has a living faith (which does save), that their faith is going to produce works given time and opportunity.

Works of righteousness we have done refers to man doing his own righteousness to try and save himself rather than do God's righteousness.

But you are trying to save yourself by doing God's righteousness.

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The righteousness of God, here, is accounted to man through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is PRECISELY the kind of answer I expected from the like of an uninformed and historically-bankrupt mind like yours.

Keep it up with that bearing of such good fruit!

This is PRECISELY the kind of answer I expected from the like of an uninformed and historically-bankrupt mind like yours.
Had you done your homework - you would have discovered that Priestly Celibacy goes back to the early centuries of the Church - BEFORE Christianity was even legal. It was during a time when Christians were still being persecuted by pagan Rome for their faith.

Many of the Early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius also favored celibacy. But at the local Council of Elvira (Spain) (295-302 AD) celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons.

1Ti 4:1, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Baptism in "Jesus' name" is Baptism "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - as Jesus commanded in Matt. 28:19.

So the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Keep it up with that bearing of such good fruit!

I don't tolerate lies about Christ's Church - I expose them.

Next time - rebuke the person spreading the li instead of the person exposing it . . .

1Ti 4:1, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Ummmmmm, Paul is speaking of the Gnostic Heretics - not the Church.
They forbade marriage for EVERYONE - not just the clergy.
They forbade certain foods across the board - not just for fasting purposes.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

So the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ.

Nope.
Baptizing the way Christ commanded - "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is the Baptism of Christ.

THIS is what it means to Baptize in "Christ's name".

 

[Truther]

Complete and utter ignorant, anti-Catholic nonsense.
The ONLY thing "fascinating" here is how gullible anti-Catholics like yourself can seduced by this kind of garbage . . .

This is PRECISELY the kind of answer I expected from the like of an uninformed and historically-bankrupt mind like yours.
Had you done your homework - you would have discovered that Priestly Celibacy goes back to the early centuries of the Church - BEFORE Christianity was even legal. It was during a time when Christians were still being persecuted by pagan Rome for their faith.

Many of the Early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius also favored celibacy. But at the local Council of Elvira (Spain) (295-302 AD) celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons.

The bottom line is that nobody is forced to become a priest, ergo, no Catholic is "forced" to be celibate.
Those who enter the religious life know very well in advance that this discipline is expected of them.

The problem with anti-Catholics like yourself is that your fairy tales only go back as far as the original anti-Catholics who started these fairy tales - men like Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylons) and Loraine Boettner (Roman Catholicism). These guys didn't do their homework either and their lies spawned all of the garbage that people like YOU willingly swallow as the "truth".

Shame on them - and shame on YOU for not doing your homework . . .

You don't get it.
This has nothing to do with Hislop or holiness.
This is the logical underlying reason for power retention in the development of the RCC.
They had to eliminate the competition.
This became a good ol boys club, instead of a family rulership.
They knew good and well what they were doing and told their priests it would make them holier in the process.
The RCC has not been defeated in 1700 years per this strategy.
Smart men back then....similar to the founders of our constitution(denying nepotism).

 

[BreadOfLife]

You don't get it.
This has nothing to do with Hislop or holiness.
This is the logical underlying reason for power retention in the development of the RCC.
They had to eliminate the competition.
This became a good ol boys club, instead of a family rulership.
They knew good and well what they were doing and told their priests it would make them holier in the process.
The RCC has not been defeated in 1700 years per this strategy.
Smart men back then....similar to the founders of our constitution(denying nepotism).

Wrong.

It has everything to do with the Hislops and Boettners of history who invented this manure that YOU so willingly believe.

Why don't you address the celibacy mandate of the Council of Elvira that I referenced?? This was about 700 years PRIOR to Boettner's phony date.

I eagerly await your educated response . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

They forbade marriage for EVERYONE - not just the clergy.

Forbidding the clergy to marry is still forbidding marriage.

Next time - rebuke the person spreading the li instead of the person exposing it . .

I will rebuke those who deserve rebuking.

this manure

Such good fruit you bear!

 

[Truther]

Wrong.

It has everything to do with the Hislops and Boettners of history who invented this manure that YOU so willingly believe.

Why don't you address the celibacy mandate of the Council of Elvira that I referenced?? This was about 700 years PRIOR to Boettner's phony date.

I eagerly await your educated response . . .

Do you think that there was no underlying reason for the mandate?

Such a radical idea as celibacy?

Thousands of men to never touch a woman?

Without the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

Right, this was a power securing idea, which nobody would but into if they knew it was to avoid nepotism.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Truly, Jesus said, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He sent.

He is saying that if you are going to insist that you are going to be saved by works, then the only work that will save you is going to be a simple faith in Jesus Christ.

John 6:27-29 also proves that belief is a work God has given man to do:
1) Jesus clearly says to WORK for the food that endures unto everlasting life. No work = no everlasting life.
2) the people then ask Jesus what is this work is they are to do "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"
3) Jesus did NOT tell then to do no works but actually gave them a work....."ye believe".

At least above you are now admitting that faith is a work.

No verse says that faith is obedient action, either. In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts such a notion.

Obedience is an action, it is doing what is commanded. No one was ever commanded to have faith only to be saved but men have been told to believe (a work as we just saw above) repent (something done) confess (something done) submit to baptism (something done) live faithfull (something done).

Romans 6:16----------------obedience>>>>>>>>>>>>>unto righteousness
Roman 10:10---------------believeth>>>>>>>>>>>>> unto righteousness

Just one way to be saved/made righteous so belief is an obedient work. Again, John 3:36 ASV contrasts "believeth" to "obeyeth not".

Before God, he is. Before man, who cannot see an invisible faith (while the Lord can see the invisible), we must see works of faith in order to determine that a man has genuine faith.

Mark 2:5 Jesus saw their faith, He could see faith for faith was a work that was taking place before Him.
Jonah 3:10 God saw their works for their repentance was a work done before God.
Therefore faith is no mental activity, an attitude of the mind and nothing more.

It doesn't. It refers to works, period.

You have not provided any proof from the context that Romans 4:5 excludes obedience. Again Abraham was a man who obeyed God, who DID DO obedient works and was justified by those works. Yet he was not justified by flawless works the OT law required for
1) he sinned and did not keep God's law perfectly....he was ungodly (Romans 4:5)
and
2) he did not even live under the OT law but was justified in uncircumcision (Romans 4:10).

Hence Paul's point is that justification for Jew and Gentile comes not by works of the law but by an obedience faith. Again Paul makes that contrast in Romans 3:28. Again Romans 6:16-18 Paul puts obedience BEFORE justification therefore Romans 4:5 does not, cannot eliminate obedience else the Bible contradicts itself badly.

Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized (obedience) comes before salvation (remission of sins)
Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized (obedience) comes BEFORE salvation.
Romans 10:10 belief and confession (obedience) comes BEFORE salvation...unto salvation. One does NOT believe and confess BECAUSE he already is saved.

All I'm saying...that faith is an obedient attitude. I think that you are arguing just to argue; because I have come over to your side to a very great extent in order to find agreement; and yet you refuse to agree with the reality of the truth.

But the Bible does NOT say that faith is just a mental attitude and nothing more...
Hebrews 11:
By faith Abel obeyed in his offerings
By faith Noah obeyed, moved with fear in building the ark
By faith Abraham obeyed in moving from his house and land
By faith Abraham offered up Isaac.

The faith of these men would have been worthless and dead had they had faith only.

No verse says that faith is obedient action. In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts such a notion.

Again:

By faith Abel obeyed in his offerings
By faith Noah obeyed, moved with fear in building the ark
By faith Abraham obeyed in moving from his house and land
By faith Abraham offered up Isaac.

Clearly obedience is an action in making offerings, in building an ark, in moving.​

Is it not works to be obedient to the will of God?

I am contending faithfully here, that obedient action is the sure result of a living and saving faith if the person has time and opportunity to do the good works that result out of a living and saving faith. But a man is not saved through the obedient action, but by the faith that brings about the action.

If you are going to continue to argue otherwise, I think that you need to take some scissors and cut Ephesians 2:8-9 out of your Bible. Because this is what you have effectively done in your theology. But keep Revelation 22:19 in mind.

You have yet to show where God first saved one BEFORE that person was obedient to the will of God. No person was ever saved by God while that person continued in disobedience to God's will. God requires obedience first, then justification follows.

Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about works period; not just works of merit.

WE have seen that faith/belief is a work so the "not of works" of verse 9 cannot annul the work of faith of verse 8. Nor can the "not of works" of verse 9 annul the good works Christians are required to do. No good works and the Christian will not be save, Matthew 25.

If obedience is in any way required, then perfect obedience is required, and grace is not going to take you the rest of the way. But if you are saved by grace, then you are wholly saved by grace. See Romans 11:5-6 (kjv).

God does not require sinless perfection from man but an obedient faith...and an obedient faith includes repenting of sins which when the Christian repents, God will forgive and forget.

Man is saved by grace but not saved by grace only. Paul refutes salvation by grace only in Romans 6 by showing salvation takes both God's grace and man's obedience. Just because the Christian is saved by grace does not allow the Christian to disobey God and sin for the Christian is one who is dead to sin. We each are serving one of two master, we are serving either:
1) sin unto death or 2) obedience unto righteousness (Romans 6:16).

If the Christian is not obeying God by serving obedience unto righteousness then he is serving sin unto death and will be lost...if he does not repent and go back to obeying God in serving "obedience unto righteousness".

There is no contradiction in my mind. Consider that works don't save; but that if someone has a living faith (which does save), that their faith is going to produce works given time and opportunity.

The Bible shows that works of the OT law do not save, that works of merit do not save, good works will not save the sinner but the Bible shows time and again that obedience to God's will does save. All works are therefore not the same and no verse unconditionally eliminates all works. If Rom 4:5 or Eph 2:9 eliminate obedience then that eliminates one from serving "obedience unto righteousness" and has all serving "sin unto death". NO ONE who continues to serve sin unto death will be saved. (Romans 6:16)

But you are trying to save yourself by doing God's righteousness.

The righteousness of God, here, is accounted to man through faith in Jesus Christ.

I have never said that I am saving myself BY MYSELF. I am saving myself in the sense of doing what God has commanded. In Acts 2:38 God commanded men to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. therefore those who obey GOD'S RIGHTOEUSNESS in repenting and being baptized are in that sense saving themselves. Peter told those Jews to "save yourselves" (verse 40) and they would do so by doing GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS and not by doing their OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Again Romans 10:3 the Jews were lost for going about doing THEIR OWN RIGHTOEUSESS instead of obeying GOD'S RIGHTOEUSNESS in believing, repenting, confessing and being baptized as God requires.

Again the faith only-ist will not see the difference between one doing his OWN righteousness and one doing GOD'S righteousness. One cannot save himself by doing his own righteousness but one can save himself by doing God's righteousness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you think that there was no underlying reason for the mandate?
Such a radical idea as celibacy?
Thousands of men to never touch a woman?
Without the baptism of the Holy Ghost?
Right, this was a power securing idea, which nobody would but into if they knew it was to avoid nepotism.

Are you THAT dense and historically bankrupt??

Do you NOT understand that before Christianity was legalized by Constantine in the 4th century that the Church didn't own property to speak of or worship publicly?
This phony, invented fairy tale about "nepotism" and "riches" of the Church being passed onto the offspring of clergy members is completely moot since celibacy goes back to the THIRD century and the Council of Elvira.

Go sell your phony-baloney anti-Catholic lies somewhere else.
There are too many educated people here . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Forbidding the clergy to marry is still forbidding marriage.

It is a discipline that is recommended by Paul (1 Cor. 7:25-25) as a more excellent way to serve God.

I will rebuke those who deserve rebuking.

Funny how you won't rebuke a person who LIES - but you'll rebuke the person who exposes it.
Satan LOVES that because he is the Father of lies.

Such good fruit you bear!

Exposing lies and revealing truth IS good fruit.

 

[Jay Ross]

They were disobedient and showed NO love for their neighbor, who is Christ Himself.

That's why they were condemned.

And you are also missing the point of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats by equation our neighbours as Christ. I would humbly suggest, that the Sheep did it for the/because of Christ in their lives, and not because the least of Christ's brethren was Christ, which is what you are implying. They cared for their brethren whether or not Christ saw or rewarded their acts of kindness towards other.

On the other hand, the Goats would have, if the least of Christ's brethren was Christ if they saw that He had a need. In other words they would have acted Christ like if they thought that Christ would see their deeds and reward them.

In other words, the sheep acted because there was a need, whereas the Goats would have acted, if they would have gained something in return for their actions.

It is not a matter of the implied law of giving/acting to receive, it is a matter of giving/acting because that is the heart of Christ in our lives that motivates us to act that way without needing or receiving any recompense for our acts of kindness.

There is a very big difference.

Shalom