Douay

hmmmm, thanks for the fresh insight, ahhhhhh.

Pretty good post, I got a kick out of it anyway.

I agree with you on all of that it's just the way it gets put a lot of the time that I don't agree with. You must admit that we have free will and can either choose to follow God or not, that's all there really is to my point.

Some more old thoughts, Why do we have the need to try so hard to rationalize the faith alone concept? My personal view: it just looks like the lazy way out; pick out a few passages we like, establish our whole dogma around them and make sure that they are really easy to follow, and have no way of being ridiculed by anyone(being entirely intangible), and put catch 22's in like if you have faith then, well, you're going to do the good works anyway, because the Holy Ghost is going to possess your body, take over, and do good things, period, and if you do happen to do bad then you must not have been saved properly all along. Correct, works won't save you but neither will faith alone. Dat's in der Bible. You can always throw in the catch 22 of 'you're gonna have to do good works, no choice bub'. For starters Satan and the other 1/3 of all angels had perfect faith and still fell, so for them to do wrong were they not saved properly? If that's what you want to believe go ahead, just don't tout it as truth when you know it stands in contradiction to the Bible.

That isn't true, something else must have been meant. To me, that sounds like they have forgiven you, they don't hold ill will toward you anyway. Show me how Catholic confession doesn't fulfill the requirement held by Protestants. Do we not confess our sins to God? Do we not direct prayers directly to Him asking for forgiveness? Is it not in the Catechism that we must be truly sorry? If you don't like the fact that we go talk to a priest or do penance to make reparation for our sins to God, don't worry about it it doesn't apply to you. Is it not symbolic of the sacrifices made by those long ago? So what if we follow the Bible this way? It doesn't contradict your meaning of what it takes to ask God for forgiveness and recieve it, it completely contains everything you say one must do, it just goes farther. If I am wrong, point out how, noone has ever argued this point or agreed with me all I usually get is silence.

So would you have to stop them and say "NO! you can only forgive me for the gossip I said about you" and if you didn't would you have sinned against God?

I like everyone on this board for the most part, and most of the time. Sometimes we are all a little mean to each other. I think it would be awesome if we could all sit down together somewhere, see each other face to face.

Ok, so let's say you were talking your sins over with a friend and they said that they forgive you for all of your wrongdoing for they know that you are truly sorry, would you have sinned?

Just some old thoughts, From my vantage point I see many scriptures saying that faith is necessary and all can hold that to be true. I see many scriptures that say faith and works are necessary, and I see many that say works will not justify you before the Lord and faith will. I see many that say good works are a good thing to shoot for. I think we can agree that works alone is not a method of scripturally defined salvation. Furthermore, I think that that is what Paul must have meant, he was clarifying that when it was said that faith must have works, that even though works are the fruit of faith, they were not enough to merit salvation, because they can happen with or without faith, hence, can be pleasing to God or fruitless. Faith is required for salvation. This is in scripture. Works are required for salvation. This is in scripture. Baptism is required for salvation. This is in scripture. YOU CAN NOT SINGLE OUT ONE LINE IN THE BIBLE AND ESTABLISH ALL OF YOUR BELIEFS AROUND IT! Now maybe they(Paul) assumed that when they said faith everyone would know that the other things were implied, because they taught them those things also. James' epistle was written before Paul's writings, did Paul not know them? Was he trying to contradict James? Or, more rationally, did he imply those things, because he never, even once, ever, ever, ever excluded them specifically. He never said don't get baptized, there's no point and you get all wet. He never said don't do any good works. It may have been said that works will not save you, we know, however that they are part of the formula. If you were going to gamble and the wager was for your eternal soul would you chose faith alone, or faith and works? (With the second one you're covered no matter what)

Ever heard of tough love? Helping someone when it doesn't feel nice.

Then you can ignore the fact that we sit in a confessional and focus on the fact that we are confessing to God.

And I guess you telepathically confess your sins to our Lord Jesus Christ right???? Tell me something: If Jesus Christ is God and God is omniscient (knows everything), then why you need to telepathically confess your sins to God if He already knows which ones are your sins????. If Jesus Christ instituted confession via telepathy, why the Bible says: "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (Jn 20:23) ???? If Jesus gives to the disciples the power to forgive sins (hence, the biblical method of confession), how that system relates to the "telepathic confession" one???. Let's say one person confesses a sin to a disciple and the disciple does not forgive the sin but then the very same person confesses the very same sin telepathically......: is the sin forgiven or isn't according to Scripture???. Mobile, I think you may have missed the point. All that they were doing was trying to throw an insult at us. I am not going to name the name of that person since it is an oxymoron when compared with that behavior. They go to confession to profess their sins to man. Now you must realize that that statement isn't entirely accurate. You know that the Catholic teaching is that the priest is simply a placeholder and that we are confessing our sins to God, or at least that is what Sister Marcia taught us when I was 8 or so. If you know how a Catholic confession goes it starts with a profession of sins, then an act of contrition, "Oh my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to confess my sins, do penace, and amend my life. Amen." Ok, where did that involve a man? Was that not directed to God? OH MY GOD I HEARTILY SORRY SOR HAVING OFFENDED THEE. There is hardly any attack on us that is not baseless. At the heart of it you must realize that we meet all of their requirements for salvation. We confess our sins to God, we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and saviour. But there are other things that we believe in, too. Why do they deem it necessary to attack those beliefs? If the only ones that matter are believe in Jesus, confess sins to God, get baptised, why would it hurt to do more? We do everything that they thinks it takes. Where is the problem? I know it is a much deeper question than most are prepared to answer. Is it that you know there is more? If not, then why worry about it?

The post you made was ridiculous and only someone mentally ill could come to such conclusions.

John- one more question, you said that Paul never claimed to be an apostle and that they never claimed him. Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the elect of God and the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness:" What's that?

1 Corinthians 4:4-5 "For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God. " 2 Corinthians 10:18 "For not he who commendeth himself is approved: but he, whom God commendeth." Paul said he does not know if he is saved, that salvation is not determined until we stand before the Lord. Paul never said to declare oneself possessing of salvation. Titus 1:6 "They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him: being abominable and incredulous and to every good work reprobate." Their works mattered. They said that they had salvation through faith, but it didn't matter. Titus 2:7 "In all things shew thyself an example of good works, in doctrine, in integrity, in gravity," Titus 2: 14-15 "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works. These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. " Paul says to do good works. Titus 3 : "It is a faithful saying. And these things I will have thee affirm constantly, that they who believe in God may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain. And let our men also learn to excel in good works for necessary uses: that they be not unfruitful." (selections) This says how to perform your works and that they are good and profitable.

I just found it, it took some digging, I'll have it up in a few.

John, Now you said a lot up there about Paul and faith alone, if what you say is true then Paul would have been able to verify it. Why is it when he was asked Paul said he didn't know if he was saved and that it would not be known until standing before the Lord?

Do I sense a little Sarcasm here "D"? I wonder if God speaks Greek or Hebrew? HEHE No anyway, Protestants don't always speak with the authority of the Bible, in fact we are very good and NOT doing this. Our Goal is honest and sincere (sometimes) and that is to preach the Word as best we can as we Have it. That is all that anyone can do. Here's a silly question, does it really matter if the Bible is Perfectly Infallible, when man's interpretation will always be, to a degree, fallible? That's just something to think about, don't pull out all your guns and start blasting me with "blah blah blah, how can we read the bible then,,, do you think it's inspired Blah blah" I'm just throwing it out there... Sure I was being sarcastic but he seriously took what someone said and used Biblical translation rules to change the meaning of the words. Maybe it was just an oversight, something he thought was a Bible quote. I wasn't going to pull out any guns and blast you, I think that is a good point, worthy of note.

If you are infallible then what you say is perfectly accurate, right? Well if you say that you are perfect would you not be saying almost the same thing. I reiterate, infallible- incapable of error, perfect- without error.

So Protestants speak with the authority of the Bible at all times and when we hear what they say we should translate it into Greek first because it came to them as revelation from God and then translate it back into English.

Why would one not want to be baptized? Thats a question that puzzles me.

Let's start with a definition. Webster- Infallibility(adj.)-not capable of error, perfectly reliable. Perfect(adj.)-without blemish or defect, faultless, morally correct. Well, I guess those two words aren't all that different. I quote some recent posts here on worthy: "Since the Bible does not teach an invisible Church, but rather a literal, functioning, visible body of chosen ones, bound together by covenant, it is evident that Church perfection means something more than the perfect holiness of individuals. The Bible teaches both individual perfection and Church perfection. Individual perfection results from the grace of sanctification and walking in the light. " "We have got to overcome a false doctrine that satan has planted so firmly in the midst of Truth that has a lot of Christians deceived and they don't know it. They have bought His lie that there is only one perfect and that is Christ." At least only one Catholic claims to be infallible, and that, only under certain circumstances. D

No, it's because they are trying to do enough works, because that's what they think matters just doing works nothing else. You don't have to believe in Jesus just do what he said. Wait, was that stupid?

There are several instances in the where it says they went down into the water, and they came up out of the water. John the Baptist chose a particular place to do his baptizing, because it had plenty of water. If you could be baptized by sprinkling, who go all the way to the river? Just bring a bucket. And, of course, the Greek baptidzo literally means to immerse in water. Other traditions developed later, but the meaning of the word remains. Obviously you have never had to manage a child or this wouldn't be so perplexing. You go to the river and tell a kid not to get in, then when you aren't looking you look out and see the child is up to his knees in the river, now would you say that the child is in the river and tell him to come up out of the river? Of course you would, or would you maintain your current position, that the child never actually went into the river unless he went completely under? Baptizo means to immerse in or cleanse with water.

Works salvation? Try the Catholic Catechism. Indulgences. Penance. Baptism of unbelievers. Nothing new here! Yeah, you're right, we have people running around over here at the Catholic Church who don't believe in the Bible or Jesus or God but who knows why they go to confession, I guess they're crazy since they don't believe in it.