ECT FAITH ALONE: DID JESUS TEACH IT?

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
Thus, my statements stand exactly as posted.
Your denomination stands on its own. You split !
Nothing resembling the Romanist Church of
today existed until the late-Fourth ...or early-
Fifth... Centuries.

In 115 A.D., the Church of Antioch and the
Church of Rome were just two of five major
regional churches. *The use of the term
"Catholic" (or "Universal") meant that all true
churches are the Bride of Christ.

That the Church of Rome centuries later
became apostate, and started calling itself
THE "Catholic" church, does ~not~ make
it true !

The Church of Rome is no more the
"Catholic Church" than the JW's are
really Witnesses of Jehovah, or that
Christian Science is either Christian
or scientific.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Nothing resembling the Romanist Church of
today existed until the late-Fourth ...or early-
Fifth... Centuries.
It sure looks nothing like the church of Acts 1-7.

In fact, it greatly resembles the many Pharisees which rejected the Lord Jesus.
And it greatly resembles Baal worship (with a few "Christian" words tossed in)
 

Cruciform

New member
Your denomination stands on its own. You split !
Nothing resembling the Romanist Church of today existed until the late-Fourth ...or early-
Fifth... Centuries. In 115 A.D., the Church of Antioch and the Church of Rome were just two of five major
regional churches. *The use of the term "Catholic" (or "Universal") meant that all true churches are the Bride of Christ.
That the Church of Rome centuries later became apostate, and started calling itself THE "Catholic" church, does ~not~ make
it true ! The Church of Rome is no more the "Catholic Church" than the JW's are really Witnesses of Jehovah, or that
Christian Science is either Christian or scientific.
Your comments here merely place your vast ignorance of ecclesiastical history on public display (again). Your claims will convince no one who is actually educated on the subject.
 

God's Truth

New member
12662621_789239907846827_6503647556101616761_n.jpg



Questions or Comments?

Faith alone is mentioned one time, and it is to warn us of what kind of faith NOT to have.

See James 2:14, 17, 20, and 22.
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
Your comments here merely place your vast ignorance of ecclesiastical history on public display (again). Your claims will convince no one who is actually educated on the subject.
Don't rely on unproven books that causes you to make stories and think it's from God.
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
Still Post #170.

Here is Ellicott's Commentary on who the rock is that Jesus says the Church will be built:

What is the rock? Peter’s faith (subjective)? or the truth (objective) which he confessed? or Christ Himself? Taking all the facts of the case, the balance seems to incline in favour of the last view. (1.) Christ and not Peter is the Rock in 1Corinthians 10:4, the Foundation in 1Corinthians 3:11. (2.) The poetry of the Old Testament associated the idea of the Rock with the greatness and steadfastness of God, not with that of a man [Deuteronomy 32:4; Deuteronomy 32:18; 2Samuel 22:3; 2Samuel 23:3; Psalm 18:2; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 18:46; Isaiah 17:10; Habakkuk 1:12 (Hebrew)]. (3.) As with the words, which in their form present a parallel to these, “Destroy this temple” (John 2:19), so here, we may believe the meaning to have been indicated by significant look or gesture. The Rock on which the Church was to be built was Himself, in the mystery of that union of the Divine and the Human which had been the subject of St. Peter’s confession. Had Peter himself been meant, we may. add, the simpler form, “Thou art Peter, and on thee will I build My Church,” would have been clearer and more natural. As it is, the collocation suggests an implied contrast: “Thou art the Rock-Apostle; and yet not the Rock on which the Church is to be built. It is enough for thee to have found the Rock, and to have built on the one Foundation.”
 
Last edited:

beloved57

Well-known member
Jesus and the apostles went first to Israel. This reflects the order and direction of salvation history: to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles (Ac. 1:8; Rom. 1:16). After Jesus' Resurrection, the apostles are sent specifically to the Gentiles, that there might be "one flock with one Shepherd" (Jn. 10:16; 11:52).

In any case, the subject of the OP is the unbiblical Protestant notion of sola fide ("faith alone"), not your faddish and fabricated man-made ecclesiology. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Those Christ died for are reconciled to God by His death even while they are enemies and unbelievers Rom 5:10 so salvation is by Christ death alone, apart from mans faith and works !
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Yes, Christ's acts alone and faith alone are a pair or else they don't exist. As soon as the 'alone' is removed from Christ's acts, faith is mixed with effort.

The crowd asked Jesus 'what do we do to do the work of God?'
A: 'The work of God is to believe upon Him whom He sent.'

That was meant to generate other kinds of actions than the ones they were doing there.
 

God's Truth

New member
Yes, Christ's acts alone and faith alone are a pair or else they don't exist. As soon as the 'alone' is removed from Christ's acts, faith is mixed with effort.

The crowd asked Jesus 'what do we do to do the work of God?'
A: 'The work of God is to believe upon Him whom He sent.'

That was meant to generate other kinds of actions than the ones they were doing there.

Jesus saves us all on his own, and he chooses those he saves. Jesus chooses those who obey him. That is what the Bible says.

It is never ever a wrong time to obey God. How do you get it is then called a bad effort if one obeys to be saved?

Jesus is the Way, and we have to do what the Way says to get to the Father.
 

Cruciform

New member
Those Christ died for are reconciled to God by His death even while they are enemies and unbelievers Rom 5:10 so salvation is by Christ death alone, apart from mans faith and works !
Is the man "saved" if the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him?
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Is the man "saved" if the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him?
I don't know about your religion, but no. However in my religion every one that my Christ died for have the benefits instantly applied to them, that is why they are reconciled to God while they are enemies and unbelievers Rom 5:10 when others are enemies under condemnation and wrath Jn 3:18,36!
 
Top