Why is Eternal Life a Free Gift?

[thereselittleflower]

 

TLF in the Scripture we have validation from God that it is His Word... how do you valid oral tradition which is where sacraments are supported as necessary elements in salvation? 

 

You know that this will result in a new discussion, tangent to  my answer to gdemoss, and I am happy to have such a discussion, but I want you to be aware that what often happens in such discussions as these, they keep splintering off into other tangent discussions and I am one person and can only handle so much at any one time.    I've explained my position on this question before.    

I think it is important to understand I came to my understanding on this as a protestant, and there are other protestants who share this understanding.

I find my validation for oral tradition in scripture as well as the testimony of the ECF's in the first centuries following the apostolic era.    I have shared this before that Paul commands us to stand and hold fast to the traditions we have been taught by word (verbally) or epistles (in writing) by the Apostles.  Paul uses the imperative voice so it is a command.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

I have shared before that in the New Testament we do not find a counterpart of the Pentateuch in which God essentially provided a Judiasm 101. There is nothing like that in the New Testament for Chrsitianity.   All of the books of the New Testament were written to believers who had already been taught the chrsitian faith,  already had the foundation of the christian faith laid down in their lives, and so the letters, for example, were written to build on that foundation, to correct, to reprove, etc.  But they were not written to lay the foundation for the first time.  This is why Paul commands us above to stand and hold fast to the teachings the Apostles passed on to the believers, whether by word of mouth or written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do remember this before- I was hoping for something more from a studied person as yourself!
The one thing of context in the verse above is the overall transition from OT written and established
and NT being formed at the very verse's writ... in this parameter of reality I would like to clearly
identify the foundation of difference from you and I. The Word of God states a guidance to all
truth to men of all time and is stated as such here
2 Peter 1:12-21
12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things,
though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
This present truth that  was Peter's pulpit of the life he had had with The Living Christ. Note
they already had knowledge of them by Peters constant preaching of this to them by the
"though ye know them" http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/  these NT letters
formed and in circulation at the time of Peter's writing of this are the context that Peter is referring
to as we will see further
13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in
remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord
Jesus Christ hath shewed me.15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my
decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 For we have not followed cunningly
devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory,
when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were
with him in the holy mount.
Peter's remark "cunningly devised fables" marks the importance of the battle the Disciples were
facing... there were false teachers without credentials of the Disciples saying all matter of oral
rubbish earning the name "cunningly devised fables"... his main desire was his departure (death)
and them having a more sure Word of prophecy
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost.
KJV
here the whole of context is revealed as Peter and the rest of the Disciples were the verifiers' of the truth
of the life they witnessed of Jesus and were concerned with their mortality and what would happen to
the subjective truth they alone contained. Said truth was being formed and verified not by oral tradition
but by letter just like the written Scriptures of the OT- "a more sure Word of prophecy"... key note is "not
of any private interpretation" but written so that what was read in the early church I am reading to today.
He said, she said, they said is a foolish venue  of what is more sure... I will with he said, she said,
they said most certainly verify with a more sure Word of prophecy written thus making the Scripture the
only source of certainty to find The Lord Person to be formed within me!     Love, Steven

 

 

See, this doesn't say only scripture though.    

In fact,  the passage you quote above the commentator, to me, appears to make a mistake.    He does acknowledge the validity of both oral and written tradition,  but then refers to the written scriptures of the OT as  "a more sure word of prophecy"    he continues as if  "a more sure word of prophecy" refers to what is written.  But this is reading into the passage something the passage doesn't actually say.

It doesn't refer to what is written.

It refers to what is spoken.

Read it again:

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

If we look at the underlying Greek.

"word" is logos - this means the spoken word - just like it does in 2Th 2:15 the verse I used previously

λόγος lógos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):—account, cause, communication, × concerning, doctrine, fame, × have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, × speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work. 

 

  It is always used of the spoken word.   

What is the fuller context of this verse?

 2Pe 1:15 
Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 

 2Pe 1:16 
 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 

 2Pe 1:17 
 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 

 2Pe 1:18 
 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 

 

2Pe 1:19 
 
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

Peter moves from verse 18 to verse  19 with the conjunction "kai" which signifies a continuation of the same thought in sequence.  So Peter is still speaking of the VOICE they heard on the holy mount, the VOICE of God the Father and His declaration who Jesus is.

So Peter is referring to the spoken word.    THIS VOICE - the VOICE of God the Father which they heard with their own ears saying   

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

 

Jesus promised the Apostles the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth.      So again:  We - the Apostles -  have a more sure speech, message, utterance of prophecy -  the words of Christ, the teaching of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, things Jesus wanted to tell them before he left but couldn't..       

Another translation capture this meaning:

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

 

Protestants are not in agreement as to what Peter means here.  Here are  a couple protestant commentaries which focus on Peter referring to what was spoken being what was heard on the Mt of Transfiguration and the testimony and teaching/prophetic utterances of the Apostles :

... when St. Peter applied the epithet "surer" (βεβαιότερον) to the word of prophecy, does he mean in his own estimate of it, or in that of others? If he is speaking of himself, it is surely inconceivable that any possible testimony to the truth of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ could be comparable with the commanding authority of the Divine voice which he himself had heard borne from heaven, and the transcendent glory which he himself had seen flashing from the Saviour's human form and bathing it in an aureole of celestial light. That heavenly voice had made the deepest possible impression on the apostles. "They fell on their faces," as Moses had done under the like circumstances, recognizing it as the voice of God. Peter had said, "Lord, it is good for us to be here;" and evidently all through his life he felt that it was good for him to dwell in solemn thought on the treasured memories of that august revelation. No written testimony could be "surer" to St. Peter than that voice from heaven. But is he rather thinking of the confirmation of the faith of his readers? He is still using the first person plural, as in verses 16 and 18; in this verse, indeed, he passes to the second; but the retaining of the first person in the first clause of the verse shows that, if he is not still speaking of apostles only, he at least includes himself among those who have the word of prophecy; and to him certainly the testimony of that word, though sacred and precious, could not be "surer" than the testimony of the heavenly voice. To Jewish Christians the evidence of the prophets of the Old Testament was of supreme importance. Nathanael, the "Israelite indeed," was drawn to the Lord by the assurance that, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the prophets, did write." The Lord himself insisted again and again upon the testimony of the prophets; so did his apostles after him. Still, it seems difficult to understand that, even to Jewish Christians, the testimony of the prophets, however sacred and weighty, could be surer than that of those apostles who made known the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, having been eye-witnesses of his majesty; while to Gentile Christians the testimony of those apostles of the Lamb who declared "what they had heard, what they had seen with their eyes, what their hands had handled, of the Word of life," must have had greater power to convince than the predictions of the Hebrew prophets, though these predictions, fulfilled as they were in the Lord Jesus, furnish subsidiary evidence of exceeding value.

Pulpit Commentary verse 19

 

Though this word of prophecy is generally understood of the writings and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ, yet different ways are taken to fix the comparison: some think the sense is, that they are more sure than the cunningly devised fables, 2 Peter 1:16 but as these have no certainty nor authority in them, but are entirely to be rejected, the apostle would never put the sacred writings in comparison with them: and it is most clear, that the comparison lies between this word of prophecy, and the testimony of the apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of the majesty and glory of Christ; but how prophecy should be a surer evidence of Christ, and the Gospel, than such a testimony, is difficult to understand; and is a sense which all agree to reject, by different methods

..it is scarcely credible that the apostle, who had been an eye and ear witness in the holy mount, would put himself in among them, and say, "we have", &c. for whatever prophecy was to them, it could not be surer to him than what he had seen with his eyes, and heard with his ears. Others suppose that the meaning is, that prophecy was "now" surer to the Christians than it was "before", it being confirmed and established by facts and events, and also by miracles, and even by the attestation of this voice heard on the mount, and by the majesty of Christ seen there; but if this had been the sense of the apostle, he would have used these words, "now" and "before"; and besides, this puts the comparison quite out of its place, which manifestly stands between former prophecy, and the present testimony of the apostles: but the truth of the matter is, that this word of prophecy is not to be understood of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament; for though these are the word of God, and do testify of Christ, and are to be taken heed, and attended to, as proofs and evidence of Gospel truths, and are a light to direct and guide in matters both of faith and practice, yet they are not the only light, and are far from being the clearest, and what are only to be attended to; for the Gospel that came by Christ, and is preached by his apostles, and is contained in the writings of the New Testament, is a much clearer light, and at least equally to be attended to:  nor are the prophecies of the Old Testament, which particularly relate to Christ, designed; there are many of this kind, which, put together, may very well be called the word of prophecy, and which were to the Jews a light in a dark place, until Christ came in the flesh; and though they are to be attended to, and compared with facts, to show the truth of the divine revelation, yet they are not a surer evidence, nor so sure an evidence, as the evangelical testimony is, which is of facts, and these supported by miracles; for now the dayspring from on high hath visited us, and Christ, the bright and morning star, has appeared: but the word of prophecy, concerning Christ's second coming, is here intended, whether it lies in the words of the prophets of the Old Testament, as in Psalm 96:13 or in the words of Christ, Matthew 16:27, which latter is most likely. 

The Ethiopic version understands this of some particular prophecy, and as if the words were a citation of some prophet, rendering the words thus,

"and we have a voice more ancient than this of a prophet, saying, ye do well who take heed"

 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

 

We christians, have the more sure utterance of prophecy - the Voice of God on the Mount,  the teaching and prophetic uttereances of the Apostles.

So then, again, we come back to the command of Paul:  

Stand fast and hold to the traditions you have been taught by our spoken word or epistle.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[enoob57]

Your way past the simple application of the passage!

 The surest way to communicate is verbal or written to multiple people in different times?... written of course and there is no arguing this! Well you probably will to
sell your preconceived idea of oral tradition but in doing so you have already past the simple truth that is indicated in the passage and with common sense...
You see God has said this
Ps 19:7
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
KJV
1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which
are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh
should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
in the Lord.
KJV
You see -we see- your going into great effort in the opposite direction of simple leading of Scripture-> WRITTEN is God's
gift  "unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"
God has said and the prophets wrote it down... Jesus came and said and the followers wrote it down... The only writing
God ever did was on the stone tablets and Moses broke those... so naturally oral from God to men who wrote 'The Scriptures'...
Oral tradition pardon my directness is stupid to expect from generation to generation reliability to remain reliable!

Love, Steven

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by enoob57

[thereselittleflower]

Your way past the simple application of the passage!

 The surest way to communicate is verbal or written to multiple people in different times?... written of course and there is no arguing this! Well you probably will to
sell your preconceived idea of oral tradition but in doing so you have already past the simple truth that is indicated in the passage and with common sense...
You see God has said this
Ps 19:7
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
KJV
1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which
are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh
should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
in the Lord.
KJV
You see -we see- your going into great effort in the opposite direction of simple leading of Scripture-> WRITTEN is God's
gift  "unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"

Love, Steven

 

I have to disagree with you about the surest way to communicate.  Written language can be ambiguous and unclear.   When one teaches by speaking one has the chance for feedback and clarification.    Even written language changes in meaning from when it was first written and people thousands of years later have difficulty understanding what was written.  I found I had to ask, if scriptures alone are enough, then why is there is so much disagreement on what the written word says in protestantism, and no universal agreement on basic doctrines such as salvation?   If scripture alone was sufficient, there should not be division upon division upon division on and on and on as we have seen since the Reformation in protestantism.

If scripture alone was able to convey all that was needed for christians, then there would be agreement on such basic doctrines, but there isn't.  I found the very nature of all these disagreements with scripture alone cries out for attention to be paid to Paul's command to us:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

Is God unable to preserve what was spoken but only what was written?  

That would make no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[enoob57]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2015 at 0:38 AM, thereselittleflower said:

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2015 at 0:24 AM, enoob57 said:

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 11:34 PM, thereselittleflower said:

Your way past the simple application of the passage!

 The surest way to communicate is verbal or written to multiple people in different times?... written of course and there is no arguing this! Well you probably will to
sell your preconceived idea of oral tradition but in doing so you have already past the simple truth that is indicated in the passage and with common sense...
You see God has said this
Ps 19:7
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
KJV
1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which
are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh
should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
in the Lord.
KJV
You see -we see- your going into great effort in the opposite direction of simple leading of Scripture-> WRITTEN is God's
gift  "unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"

Love, Steven

 

Even written language changes in meaning from when it was first written and people thousands of years later have difficulty understanding what was written.  I found I had to ask, if scriptures alone are enough, then why is there is so much disagreement on what the written word says in protestantism, and no universal agreement on basic doctrines such as salvation?   If scripture alone was sufficient, there should not be division upon division upon division on and on and on as we have seen since the Reformation in protestantism.

If scripture alone was able to convey all that was needed for christians, then there would be agreement on such basic doctrines, but there isn't.  I found the very nature of all these disagreements with scripture alone cries out for attention to be paid to Paul's command to us:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

Is God unable to preserve what was spoken but only what was written?  

That would make no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

I knew this was to come from you... but I will be more careful with my heart and where I place my faith for God says it comes only from
Scripture:
Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
KJV
I also place God's Word as a closed canon... which you do not thus you place your faith in what ever might be
suggested by oral tradition with no way to examine the source and that God's Word might be added to at any time...
Doesn't seem like much of a foundation to me- but you will answer for what you teach!  Love, Steven
 

[thereselittleflower]

 

Your way past the simple application of the passage!

 The surest way to communicate is verbal or written to multiple people in different times?... written of course and there is no arguing this! Well you probably will to
sell your preconceived idea of oral tradition but in doing so you have already past the simple truth that is indicated in the passage and with common sense...
You see God has said this
Ps 19:7
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
KJV
1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which
are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh
should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
in the Lord.
KJV
You see -we see- your going into great effort in the opposite direction of simple leading of Scripture-> WRITTEN is God's
gift  "unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"

Love, Steven

 

Even written language changes in meaning from when it was first written and people thousands of years later have difficulty understanding what was written.  I found I had to ask, if scriptures alone are enough, then why is there is so much disagreement on what the written word says in protestantism, and no universal agreement on basic doctrines such as salvation?   If scripture alone was sufficient, there should not be division upon division upon division on and on and on as we have seen since the Reformation in protestantism.

If scripture alone was able to convey all that was needed for christians, then there would be agreement on such basic doctrines, but there isn't.  I found the very nature of all these disagreements with scripture alone cries out for attention to be paid to Paul's command to us:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

Is God unable to preserve what was spoken but only what was written?  

That would make no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

I knew this was to come from you... but I will be more careful my heart and where I place my faith for God says it comes only from
Scripture:
Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
KJV
I also place God's Word as a closed canon... which you do not thus you place your faith in what ever might be
suggested by oral tradition with no way to examine the source and that God's Word might be added to at any time...
Doesn't seem like much of a foundation to me- but you will answer for what you teach!  Love, Steven
 

Well I was hoping you wouldn't make this personal, but this is where it is going now.

I really would appreciate it if you would not tell me what I believe.  It is evident you don't know what I believe nearly well enough to speak for me, so I am disappointed to see you doing so.   I have no idea where you get the idea I don't believe the canon is closed, for that has nothing to do with anything I've said or the Catholic Church teaches.    Divine revelation regarding faith and morals has ceased. It ceased with the Apostles.

Because you are no longer discussing what I've said but are now discussing me personally,  I think this is where this conversation ends.   

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[gdemoss]

Little flower,  how is it you say that logos is always by spoken words when Paul declares that logos can come by letters?  Please clarify.

2Co 10:11

Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written?

We need also look for scripture that would declare that there is nothing outside of scripture necessary for salvation and it appears we find it in Paul telling Timothy in his second epistle where he declared that the old testament was enough to understand salvation through Jesus Christ.

How is it then that you go against these to declare that we need the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church to become wise unto salvation.  Is the old testament alone not enough?  Paul told Timothy it was.  The old testament spoke of Jesus according to Jesus himself.

Now please understand that no where in this post am I saying that the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church cannot aid a person in becoming wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus.  I am not even beginning to question them at all.  I am asking if you are declaring that Paul was wrong or really did not mean that the old testiment was sufficient in and of itself to make one wise unto salvation in Christ.  Or also that as mentioned above logos comes in a written form.

I wait patiently to hear your understanding on the matters at hand. Thank you!

[Guest Thallasa]

The 'will' is often forgotten when talking about this, I think.   As in not saying "Tell me what I have to do God so I can have eternal life, and I'll do it if I want to...  etc etc" ,  but rather "I am totally yours God, do with me whatever you please;  whatever you say, your very whisper, is my command - YOU ARE MY LORD AND MY GOD, ask of me whatever you will, whatever you decide, whatever you want, I am your servant oh my God, even unto death". 

((in other words - God doesn't give a bunch of choices and say pick.  He says what to do, and who is to do it, (and what not to do) , and that's that.  Either He is Lord and Master, or He is not.))

 

 

I agree with almost everything you said.

I would say, however, that God does give us choices.   There is His perfect will, and then there is His permissive will.   If we want to follow His perfect will for us then I agree with everything you said above.  

 

Also,  many people will warmly accept you into their home or church or business or other places, when you talk 'nice' and they can remain like they are and be affirmed , so to speak, even though they are selfish and wicked.

Then,  when they find out the Creator you serve (in the Messiah Yeshua)  requires a total turn-a-bout, a complete life change, 

they will turn on you viciously, "gnashing their teeth at or on you" I think it says somewhere in the BIBLE, 

and treat you like vermin.

 

I would hazard a guess that much of that may have to do with the delivery rather than the message itself.

 

 

 

The deception that is out there regarding salvation is that it is free to obtain but not free to keep.   In other words, Jesus is enough to initially save you, but you responsible for staying saved.    The Bible doesn't teach that, but that is how some false teachers approach it.

Paul asked the Galatians if having begun in the Spirit, are they now made perfect in the flesh.   That's a pertinent question because the Galatian heresy was that Jesus alone was not good enough.   They were conned into thinking that they had to keep the commandments in addition to their faith in Jesus to remain saved. 

Human pride cannot accept the idea that salvation is 100% free from start to finish.   That it is a work of God alone is repugnant to some who want to feel that they are saved because they made themselves holy which is absolutely impossible.   Even though God offers something for free, human pride still wants to earn it. 

If someone invites you to their home for dinner and they provide all of the food, how insulting would it be if you laid $20.00 on the table to help cover the cost?   You would probably never be invited back if you did that.    Yet some people do that with God.   Jesus paid for our sins 100%.  He covered the cost and he offers it to us freely and yet people are still wanting to pay for their sin through their own efforts, trying make themselves acceptable to God through their own works.  It is very insulting to God and it basically says to Him that Jesus isn't enough.

Works are never connected to getting saved or staying saved.  Salvation is a 100% free gift of God from beginning to end.  God is the one who keeps us, we don't keep ourselves saved.   It is human pride that imagines that it can do something acceptable to God based solely upon personal merit.  

Your best deeds on your best day is filthy rags before God.  You are not good enough to keep yourself saved.  Trying to purify yourself and make yourself acceptable to God is like trying give someone an Armani silk suit that is stained with motor oil, blood, feces, tar and urine.    That's what it's like trying to earn/keep your salvation.

Salvation is Jesus  + 0.   Anyone who says otherwise is a tool of Satan and a false teacher.   Satan doesn't want you to depend on Jesus. He wants you to believe that your not as bad as the Bible says you are.   And he wants you to think that you can share credit with God in salvation.

 

Well I don't believe that .I believe that all our sins of the 'fall' are wiped away totally .In other words we can begin again when we repent and accept Jesus ,but that does not give us licence to sin without conséquences .

[Guest Thallasa]

Ezra, when you bring up an aspect of Catholicism that is scripturally indefensible, littleflower wants to pretend that you just don't understand Catholicism.  That's what she does with everyone.    And of course if you get your information from other Catholics, then those Catholics were not properly catechized, as if she is the final word on what Catholics actually believe.  

The Bible, in Catholicism, isn't the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  It is three rungs down on the ladder.  The magisterium and "sacred tradition"  are above the Bible in authority.   So when it comes to salvation, what the Bible says isn't really what Catholics hold to.   That's why sacraments, and confessions to priests, and sprinkling (which is NOT baptism) and acts of penance are necessary for salvation in RCC doctrine.

 

 

This is correct .

[Guest Thallasa]

Salvation is Jesus  + 0.   Anyone who says otherwise is a tool of Satan and a false teacher.   Satan doesn't want you to depend on Jesus. He wants you to believe that your not as bad as the Bible says you are.   And he wants you to think that you can share credit with God in salvation.

So now the question remains "What do we do with the Sacraments, and are Sacraments NECESSARY for salvation?  We will let the expert on Sacraments tell us.

Would you like to talk about Sacraments? Do you know what the word Sacrament means? If we discuss this Ezra, I expect both sides to be polite and considerate of different points of view.

No. We don't need a "discussion".  Are Sacraments NECESSARY for salvation?  YES or NO.

Well I will answer as someone whose whole family recieved the 'sacraments ' . No I do not think they are neccessary . One has to consider the times ,society and history through which the Church has lived . Having cérémonies and creating a 'society' within the churches was neccessary for the survival of christianity ,but as time went on certain peoples in the Church became too attached to the external formalities ,the beauty and cérémonies nmusic etc which was to give glory to God ,but in time becamse more for the hierarchy,and became 'a way of life, with less  to do with the Jesus of the bible and more to do with the Organisation of a business . Eventually most Catholics did not talk about Jesus ,but their belonging to the organisation .This is changing a bit because of the challenge of loss  of numbers ,and sites like this which help people like me to know my God in a way I did not before .

I have nothing against the RCC as long as they stop saying it is neccessary for Salvation . The churches here are beautiful and I hate protestant churches which are so grim here . The best in the UK and Ireland are often ex- Catholic taken by the sword from the locals .    Yes both sides have blood on their hands .

The truth shall set us free .

Edited September 21, 2015 by Thallasa

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

 Thanks for removing that link. Whew!