"Works Salvation"
- Thread starter Seabass
- Start date
Please show me in scripture where Doug Brent’s opinion matters?
The church was never sola scriptura, a false inventiononof Protestants.
Show me in sctripture where it says it has to be in scripture?
I can show you where scripture disputes that!!
It’s clear what the church did believe and what Jesus and John meant from
the writings of early disciples , in the first century, not your 2000 year old irrelevant opinion born of arrogance
And “ leaning on your own opinion” in violation of scripture, and your refusal to listen to the “ pillar of truth” Those “ sent to preach “ your refusal to stay true to “ what we taught you” by word of mouth ( hint: not scripture but traditon) or to those appointed to resolve disputes on doctrine given the power to “bind and loose” meaning. Study all of them.
None of you even agree with each other! Because none of you have the word of God.
You only have words until you have the right meaning
Repent and go back to the true church , the Catholic Church”, which IS the Christian church since the beginning.
Sola scriptura is your problem. Arrogance to believe you know better than those sent to teach you is your other Problem. You don’t need any others to go off the rails as you have
You are wrong.
What I hate most about Protestabts ( I was one) is how you think Jesus was impotent he needs you to bring his church back , when he promised the “gates of he would not prevail “ and “ the gospel woyld be preached yo the end of time “ ( it doesn’t say until someone called doug found it again - Mormons , JWs and Islam claim the same!)
Jesus doesn’t need your help. He needs you to listen to start listening to those he SENT
They believed in a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession who he SENT . We know that from the first Christians ! If only you studied HIS church.
Last edited:
charismaticlady
Active Member
Is it true that the Roman Catholic Pope can add new doctrines to the Church as the Vicor of Christ?
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I do wish people would check their accusations before opening their mouths,
Here is an in-depth list of those who has a problem. A "flesh" problem. IT IS NOT COMPLETE AS IT STOPS at 1048,
I as a Protestant do not care if they marry. They should. The Orthodox do.
I am going to let the dead RIP, but before being elected there was an article with specifics about a certain recent Pope's love child and mistress, before becoming Pope, BUT IT WAS SCRUBBED after HIS ELECTION.
Pope Paul III Farnese had four illegitimate children and made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first duke of Parma.
This is a list of sexually active popes, Catholic priests who were not celibate before they became pope, and those who were legally married before becoming pope. Some candidates were allegedly sexually active before their election as pope, and others were thought to have been sexually active during their papacies. A number of them had children.
There are various classifications for those who were sexually active during their lives. Allegations of sexual activities are of varying levels of reliability, with contemporary political or religious opponents have made several. Some claims are generally accepted by modern historians, while other remain more contested.
Background
Main articles: Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) and Catholic teachings on sexual moralityFor many years of the Church's history, celibacy was considered optional. Based on the customs of the times, it is assumed[by whom?] by many that most of the Twelve Apostles were married and had families. The New Testament (Mark 1:29–31;[1] Matthew 8:14–15;[2] Luke 4:38–39;[3] 1 Timothy 3:2, 12;[4] Titus 1:6)[5] depicts at least Peter as being married, and bishops, priests and deacons of the Early Church were often married as well. In epigraphy, the testimony of the Church Fathers, synodal legislation, and papal decretals in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers, was a feature of the life of the Church. Celibacy was not required for those ordained and was accepted in the early Church, particularly by those in the monastic life.
Although various local Church councils had demanded celibacy of the clergy in a particular episcopal jurisdiction,[6] it was not until the Second Lateran Council (1139) that officially made the promise to remain celibate a prerequisite to ordination within the Latin Church (and effectively ended any practice of a married priesthood). Subsequently, sexual relationships were generally undertaken outside the bonds of marriage, and each sexual act thus committed would have been considered a mortal sin.
Popes who were legally married
Fathered illegitimate children before holy orders
| Pius II | 1458–1464 | Not married | Yes (at least two) | Two children, both born before he formally entered the clergy. The first child, fathered while in Scotland, died in infancy. A second child fathered while in Strasbourg with a Breton woman named Elizabeth died 14 months later. He delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[18] |
| Innocent VIII | 1484–1492 | Not married | Yes (two) | Both born before he entered the clergy.[19] Married elder son Franceschetto Cybo to the daughter of Lorenzo de' Medici, who in return obtained the cardinal's hat for his 13-year-old son Giovanni, who became Pope Leo X.[20] His daughter Teodorina Cybo married Gerardo Usodimare. |
| Clement VII | 1523–1534 | Not married. Relationship with a servant or slave girl – possibly Simonetta da Collevecchio | Yes (one) | Identified as Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence[21][22] |
Known to or suspected of having fathered illegitimate children after receiving holy orders
| Julius II | 1503–1513 | Not married | Yes (three daughters) | Three illegitimate daughters, one of whom was Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election as pope, and twelve years after his enthronement as bishop of Lausanne).[23] The schismatic Conciliabulum of Pisa, which sought to depose him in 1511, also accused him of being a "sodomite".[24] |
| Paul III | 1534–1549 | Not married. Silvia Ruffini as mistress | Yes (three sons and one daughter) | Held off ordination in order to continue his lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by Silvia Ruffini after his appointment as cardinal-deacon of Santi Cosimo and Damiano. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first duke of Parma.[25][26] |
| Pius IV | 1559–1565 | Not married | Allegedly three | One was a son born in 1541 or 1542. He also had two daughters.[27] |
| Gregory XIII | 1572–1585 | Not married. Affair with Maddalena Fulchini | Yes | Received the ecclesiastical tonsure in Bologna in June 1539, and subsequently had an affair that resulted in the birth of Giacomo Boncompagni in 1548. Giacomo remained illegitimate, with Gregory later appointing him Gonfalonier of the Church, governor of the Castel Sant'Angelo and Fermo.[28][29] |
| Leo XII | 1823–1829 | Not married | Allegedly three | As a young prelate, he came under suspicion of having a liaison with the wife of a Swiss Guard soldier and, as nuncio in Germany, allegedly fathered three illegitimate children.[30] |
Popes alleged to be sexually active during pontificate
A majority of the allegations made in this section are disputed by modern historians.Relationships with women
| Sergius III[a] | 904–911 | Not married | Yes (at least one) | Accused of being the illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia, the fifteen-year-old daughter of Theodora and Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum.[31][32] Such accusations lay in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis[33] and the Liber Pontificalis.[34][35][36] The accusations have discrepancies with another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was the brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.[citation needed] Fauvarque emphasises that contemporary sources are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of Pope Formosus.[37] |
| John X[a] | 914–928 | Not married. Affairs with Theodora and Marozia | No | Had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis.[32][38] However, Monsignor Johann Peter Kirsch (ecclesiastical historian and Catholic priest) wrote, "This statement is, however, generally and rightly rejected as a calumny. Liutprand wrote his history some fifty years later, and constantly slandered the Romans, whom he hated."[39] |
| John XII | 955–964 | Not married | No | Accused by adversaries of adultery and incest.[40][41] Benedict of Soracte noted that he had "a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona,[33] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse". According to Chamberlin, John was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[42] Some sources report that he died eight days after being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[40] others that he was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery.[43][44][45][46] |
| Alexander VI | 1492–1503 | Not married. Relationships with Vanozza dei Catanei and Giulia Farnese | Yes | Had a long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei while still a priest, and before he became pope; and by her had his illegitimate children Cesare Borgia, Giovanni Borgia, Gioffre Borgia, and Lucrezia.[32] A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, giving birth to a daughter Laura while Alexander was in his 60s and reigning as pope.[47] |
Relationships with men
| Paul II | 1464–1471 | Not married. Alleged affair with a page | Thought to have died of indigestion arising from eating melon,[48][49] though his opponents alleged he died while being sodomized by a page.[50][51][52] |
| Sixtus IV[a] | 1471–1484 | Not married | According to Stefano Infessura, Sixtus was a "lover of boys and sodomites" – awarding benefices and bishoprics in return for sexual favours, and nominating a number of young men as cardinals, some of whom were celebrated for their good looks.[53][54][55] Infessura had partisan allegiances to the Colonna family and so is not considered to be always reliable or impartial.[56] |
| Leo X[a] | 1513–1521 | Not married | Posthumously accused of homosexuality (by Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio). Falconi suggests he may have offered preferment to Marcantonio Flaminio because he was attracted to him.[57] Historians have dealt with the issue of Leo's sexuality at least since the late 18th century, and few have given credence to the imputations made against him in his later years and decades following his death, or else have at least regarded them as unworthy of notice; without necessarily reaching conclusions on whether he was homosexual.[58] |
| Julius III | 1550–1555 | Not married. Alleged affair with ennobled cardinal | Accusations of his homosexuality spread across Europe during his reign due to the favouritism shown to Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, who rose from beggar to cardinal under Julius' patronage.[59][60] |
| Paul VI | 1963–1978 | Not married. Alleged affair with Italian actor Paolo Carlini | In 1976, Paul VI became the first modern pope to publicly deny allegations of homosexuality, which had been raised by Roger Peyrefitte. The allegations have resurfaced periodically since and have been deemed credible by some sources.[61][62] |
Relationships with women and men
| Benedict IX | 1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048 | Not married | No | Accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries".[63][64] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts".[65] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to get married.[66] |
FreeInChrist
Active Member
You be the judge.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church https://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat0781.htm
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." [LG 16; cf. NA 3]
Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes paragraph 841, in 1992. This paragraph addresses the Church's relationship with Muslims and their acknowledgment of the one God.
But in truth... I am not a Catholic apologist and there is NO church, NONE that is 100% free of the ... can I just say... the workings of the world. NOR those of the cloth. I only knew of one of the cloth who did seem to walk and teach the truth but
I know nothing about the personal life.
No. Never has and never will.
Its yet another protestant error, another anti catholic myth to claim it so.
The church WAS given the power by Jesus to resolve disputes on doctrine , to declare what has always been tru.
It is The power to “ bind and loose” which to a first century Jew meant give authoritative answer to a dispute over doctrine and law.
As you see in scripture It was given separately to Peter alone and the apostles jointly
(We know the office of steward is inherited because we see it presented as the power of keys.
It’s why Jesus refereed to OT so his audience would understand.)
It is the power that is wielded in councils by apostolic successors as the bishops collective, and was used to resolve heresies eg Arian, Gnosticism etc.
It is not only the reason why you have a creed, to answer the Arian heresy,
But it is also the ONLY reason you can trust the New Testament -it was councils that decided what was scripture from a lot of competing books. You can trust their decision becsuse Jesus gave them the power to bind and loose.
It is rare for the successors of Peter to use the power at all ( only an handful of times in history) and , the pope never does it without wide consultation amongst the bishops - the apostolic successors. He only ever does it when there are conflicting opinions on critical doctrine. It’s an an alternative to full blown council where only single issues are resolved.
Like the power of “ Moses seat “ referred in New Testament , it is valid only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra “ intending to resolve a dispute. That’s also why Jesus told them to listen to Pharisees speaking from Moses seat.
So he does not introduce new doctrine he states what has always been true where there is doubt.
The Lord gave him the power to bind and loose and once in a while he uses it,
The power to bind and loose is why the church ( not scripture) stated as “ the pillar of truth” to which disputes are to be taken. Which church? There is only one from the beginning. The one put in the custody of Peter.
All the doctrine fits.
Have you never wondered why you can trust the New Testament? when it was a decision taken by men?
The answer is because under certain conditions the lord acts through men, at which time they are infallible .
That power is the power to bind and loose.
That lack of authority to resolve conflict is alsowhy Protestants believe completely different and mutually opposed things on every aspect of doctrine.
So It schisms into thousands of pieces . You all disagree on everything. Even on what is essential!
So half move on to form their own church, in their image not Jesus! Designer Christianity , choose the bits you like!
. It’s why luther calvin and Zwingli all disagreed, ( how so if sola scriptura works?) it’s why Lutherans disagree with Luther, and lutherism fractured to bits, it’s why calvinists disagree with Calvin. It’s why Presbyterian church is called the split P. Sola scriptura is a visible #fail. It’s hard to know even what Anglican’s now believe!
The sad thing is Protestants even bring back long discredited heresies like Pentecostals and modalism!
They- and you - should listen to the pillar of truth given the power to bind and loose.
It’s what Jesus wanted.
Last edited:
There is not enough work in the whole of the earth that could earn salvation. Even if one were to perfectly obey God's law, that would not earn salvation. Strictly speaking, such a person would not need salvation since no sin would have been committed. But apart from Jesus no one has ever done that. It doesn't mean that it can't be done, but it is a fact, stated by God through Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit, that it has never been done and will never be done.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
What kind of works are you talking about. Works of the Law, or those that we should want to do after being born again?
You have read?
Romans 3:20
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
And Romans 11:6 which speaks of saving grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Dizerner
Active Member
Scripture is clear that perfect obedience is not even theoretically possible.
21 For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
(Gal. 3:21-22 NKJ)
mailmandan
Active Member
In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "work of faith/good work" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:18)
In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Now which good works could a Christian could do that are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)
So when it comes to the moral aspect of the law, we cannot dissect good works from the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5, Paul said that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.. and in 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul said that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works.. so "not saved by works" is not merely limited to specific works under the law of Moses, but works in general.
In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Now which good works could a Christian could do that are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)
So when it comes to the moral aspect of the law, we cannot dissect good works from the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5, Paul said that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.. and in 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul said that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works.. so "not saved by works" is not merely limited to specific works under the law of Moses, but works in general.
Dizerner
Active Member
Works of faith; that is, works that express a trusting reliance for God to provide one's righteousness as an undeserved gift.
To equivocate works of merit with all actions whatsoever no matter what, is to make faith itself either not an action or a meritorious work. It is also to logically assert that only monergism is grace, and thus any action of will makes one morally superior to the person who chose differently. The word "works" must not be taken as every definition in all contexts, that is a mistake.
I think you have misinterpreted that to mean not theoretically possible, but it doesn't really say that. The problem seems to me to say that, it is practically impossible. There will always be something that each and every one of us will not obey. Even something as simple as the "don't eat apples" that got Adam and Eve. Why? Because she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise", and "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Clearly it was theoretically possible for both Adam and Eve to obey.
The real problem is that once you eat the apple, there is no law that covers even that one act of disobedience.
You don't know they weren't really apples. What the actual fruit was that was eaten is not really of any concern. The point is that the reason that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden tree was because they wanted to. I was not so much that they wanted to disobey; it was because they wanted to eat the fruit.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
mailmandan
Active Member
Works of faith (works produced out of faith) are still works and we are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) and not through faith + our own personal definition of non-meritorious works.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Yes, I agree. It was the Apostles that carried on after Jesus and to make clear in writing the New Covenant. The last six of the commandments were "bound" to the New Covenant, as were the first three, but instead of engraved tablets of stone, these are written on the heart of all those who are born again of the Spirit.
One day a week to rest in Christ was "loosed." It was no longer bound in covenant. Abiding in Christ 24/7/365 is now our Sabbath Rest in the Creator. Seeing as there was no Sabbath Day, some didn't worship God or come together any day of the week as seen in Hebrews 10:25 (as the manner of some is). Instead we should be coming together all the more as we see the day of the return of Jesus coming. And right now it is unmistakable.
This is why Peter could say of Paul's writings that they are Scripture.
Dizerner
Active Member
James 2 refutes you. Paul meant works of Law in context.
mailmandan
Active Member
Not so. See post #3130. Again when it comes to the moral aspect of the Law, we cannot dissect good works/works of faith etc.. from the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40: James 2:15-16) Elsewhere in Titus 3:5, Paul said that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.. and in 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul said that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works..
So, "not saved by works" is not merely limited to specific works under the Law of Moses, but includes works in general and Paul never said that we are saved by works of any kind, period. (Romans 3:24-28; 4:2-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9) God imputes righteousness "apart from works." The saved by "these" works (good works/works of faith etc..) and just not "those" works (merely specific works of the Law of Moses) argument is bogus.
Last edited:
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@mailmandan , @Dizerner , and everyone else following this.
Works of the Law or Faith Works.
What does the Holy Bible say on this?
Paul in Romans says.....
Romans 3:20
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Even the "works" master James suggests in The Book of James which emphasizes that genuine faith is demonstrated through good works, suggesting that faith without works is dead. However, it does not strictly advocate for the works of the law in the same way as traditional Jewish law, but rather focuses on ethical living and caring for others as expressions of faith.
One would naturally say then it is Faith Works that we must do.
Of course over time there has been much debate on whether James should even be included in the Canon of the bible.
There are many interesting debates if you care to search this subject.
Now... Paul goes on to say later on in Romans....11:6 which speaks of saving grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Ephesians 2:8 NLT God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
And best understood by the Amplified Bible... For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God;
Certainly Paul has made it clear that works of any kind have no place in God saving us.
This does not mean that one should leave a starving man to starve. It just means it is not needded for where you want to spend your eternity.
Works of the Law or Faith Works.
What does the Holy Bible say on this?
Paul in Romans says.....
Romans 3:20
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Even the "works" master James suggests in The Book of James which emphasizes that genuine faith is demonstrated through good works, suggesting that faith without works is dead. However, it does not strictly advocate for the works of the law in the same way as traditional Jewish law, but rather focuses on ethical living and caring for others as expressions of faith.
One would naturally say then it is Faith Works that we must do.
Of course over time there has been much debate on whether James should even be included in the Canon of the bible.
There are many interesting debates if you care to search this subject.
Now... Paul goes on to say later on in Romans....11:6 which speaks of saving grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Ephesians 2:8 NLT God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
And best understood by the Amplified Bible... For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God;
Certainly Paul has made it clear that works of any kind have no place in God saving us.
This does not mean that one should leave a starving man to starve. It just means it is not needded for where you want to spend your eternity.
Similar threads
