Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Comments (Page 22,445)

Showing posts 448,881 - 448,900 of530,113
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465171
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well glad you survived to read your granddaughters testimony..to see that baby ..And hopefully to welcome your Son home :)
Just from Johns posting I have the feeling he is doing just fine where he is..
I don't think that John made it. Christians don't cry "in sorrow" when a person passes away.

John NEVER LEFT a testimony that he was Born Again or that he was Saved, only that he had Salvation because of his church status, and none of us were Saved because we didn't attend his church.

a belief and attitude much different than we read from Hermi and Sera

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465172
Jul 23, 2013
 
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>I know of NO orthodox that believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Filiogue was more than just"a misunderstanding of the language".
Thats another typical Catholic ploy.When they want to move closer to our Church they will say-Oh its just a misunderstanding of language.
The other thing the Cath Church does is make a ruling a teaching or a dogma and then when they move from the middle ages and realize the ruling has no credibility before people that know the Bible or are educated they have perhaps 50 categories to put the ruling so they can say well it wasnt really definitive.These are the games.If anyone studied this closely they would see the same games I do.Recently I have seen them to pretend to move more to the middle to draw in numbers.And how about modernization?? Vatican? Call them on it and like a liar they will say give me an example so they can meander some more in argument.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465173
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Osas7 wrote:
<quoted text>Preston, it is not a matter of understanding, that we can't grasp, but, a matter of "disagreement". I believe, assurance, is the essence of saving faith.
the Bible clearly indicates that Ananias and his wife were believers, filled with the Holy Ghost, yet they split hell wide open.

that alone shows that you who believe in OSAS cant understand SIMPLE Bible Verses.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465174
Jul 23, 2013
 
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been an Orthodox Christian for only a few years, hardly time enoguh to get a consensus from "MOST ORTHODOX". And Hermi's poll disputes your statement here.
I think the only fantasy, and I say this based on what I here from your patriarchs and bishops, is your insistence that Orthodox hate the Catholic Church. I know you and Hermi do, but I'll keep praying for you and being nice. God bless.
==========

I SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS RESPONSE TO REPLY TO THIS POST NOT THE ONE ABOUT THE FILOQUE

Blatant lie despite clear past post.

""Sympathetic skepticism" and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council's decision authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and real liturgical communion between the Churches.

In other words if the Catholics ditch their Pope and convert to Orthodoxy basically they will unite with the Cath Church. LOL
==========
vern in love not authority.explained the atriarchs
Pope= King, Patriarch= Another servant of God like the people

==========
I presented significant differences in our beliefs and theology that the people will not abandon.
----------
I explained how in the past the people said the sword of the (Barbarians) rather than meet Romes demands to recognize the Pope before the Rome would help them with their defense. In other words they would rather be slaughtered than be Western.

Quotes
""BETTER THAT MY BROTHER'S EMPIRE
SHOULD PERISH, THAN THE PURITY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH."

" In spite of a sustained campaign by Patr. Bekkos to defend the union intellectually, and with vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by emperor Michael, the Orthodox Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics"."

==========
I offered a historic event where the people were told to reunite with the Western Church the people told the Emperor and Patriarch to take a hike with their ruling. You ignore this.
==========
I explained the difference in government in the Orthodox Church.
==========
I offered quotes from high ranking Orthodox opposed to reunion.
==========
I quoted a letter in which an Orthodox Metropolitan had to quiey down the Metropolitans of Greece who were outraged at rumors that there would be a reunion with Rome.
==========

This should demonstrate to everyone that despite a plethora of Truth presented to contradict their untruths Caths here will keep posting the same trash- lying, denying, remaking history, etc

I try to not waste time on you but get drawn in by my amazement that you can continue to say the same things despite being confronted in your face with the Truth. I have to learn to let this go.You are playing games and only a 1 little man on a computer spieling lies. In a real dialogue with anyone you would be destroyed. You are no threat to anyone's church.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465175
Jul 23, 2013
 
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Thats another typical Catholic ploy.When they want to move closer to our Church they will say-Oh its just a misunderstanding of language.
The other thing the Cath Church does is make a ruling a teaching or a dogma and then when they move from the middle ages and realize the ruling has no credibility before people that know the Bible or are educated they have perhaps 50 categories to put the ruling so they can say well it wasnt really definitive.These are the games.If anyone studied this closely they would see the same games I do.Recently I have seen them to pretend to move more to the middle to draw in numbers.And how about modernization?? Vatican? Call them on it and like a liar they will say give me an example so they can meander some more in argument.
The games people play....I'm off to BINGO!...

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465176
Jul 23, 2013
 
Osas7 wrote:
<quoted text>Definitions, don't stand alone, but are shaped by the surrounding context, and in regards to "abid-ing", it is in reference to fellowship. I don't accept your position, and have been quite polite in representing my views here. Fellowship is intimacy, and of course, light and darkness are not intimate. You forget, that our souls are perfected, yet, our bodies are not, but will be, when our bodies are raised incorruptible. Your body now, is certainly not incorruptible, correct?
Jesus said "If ye abide in me and I abide in you, then you can ask anything ".Jesus wants us to have fellowship with Him but as GIF/Kay just said, Jesus is NOT going into a honky tonk and set down with a bunch of drunks doing what ever drunks do.

another Scripture says our body is the temple(Saved) of God, and God will not reside in an unclean(sinful) Temple.

if you et al cant understand that, I feel sorry for you on Judgement Day.

“OneLordOneFaithE ph4:5”

Since: Apr 08

Saint John Paul II Pray forUS.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465177
Jul 23, 2013
 
Have a great evening.. its on NOW!!!

Streaming LIVE at 2:30 pm PST, opening Mass in Rio.[I heard it might be at the beach.]

See it @.
http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/live_player.as...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465178
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "proceeds" is the issue. Both agree that the Holy Spirit originates with the Father.
Read your history. The filoque was pushed by the Barbarian Charlemagne, who the Pope made Emperor to save his behind from assassination due to accusations of sexual sin.

Charlemagne then started studying theology and liked to tinker with Church doctrine.He read a lot of Augustine who is brilliant but has many many errors.Charlemagne pushed the filoque to cause division between East and West. t was to his advantage to break them apart to have more control of the Western Church and secular West at all.

An agenda hidden in piety? Sounds familiar doesnt it.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465179
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>the Bible clearly indicates that Ananias and his wife were believers, filled with the Holy Ghost, yet they split hell wide open.
that alone shows that you who believe in OSAS cant understand SIMPLE Bible Verses.
Actually, I agree that they were/are believers! However, I don't believe they forfeited their salvation, because God will not take it back , even if you want to! Romans 11:29. So, your "split hell wide open" is just theater drama :)
----------
In the OT there are plenty of examples of extremely sinful behavior by saved individuals. Examples include Abraham's cowardly lies about his wife, Judah's fornication with a prostitute, King David's murder and adultery, Solomon's idolatry and adultery, and Jonah's deliberate disobedience. Likewise, the NT has examples of Christians who sin grievously. Peter denied Christ and the gospel; Ananias and Sapphira lied publicly to impress others with their piety, a Corinthian believer committed incest; and a segment of the Corinthian church abused the Lord's Supper with selfish inconsideration and drunkenness.

The simplest way to deal with gross sin in Christians is to say that the sinner is not a Christian to begin with. But the above examples do not allow that conclusion. Even so, the remedy would then be to get the person saved. But that is not the remedy suggested for these sinners. The Bible passages on church discipline are a lesson in theology. Though forgiven and born again, Christians maintain a great capacity for sin (albeit a greater capacity for righteousness through Jesus Christ!). Biblical instructions demand that the church face the reality of sin in certain Christians in the church.

In his concluding remarks about the incestuous man, Paul says in 1 Cor 5:12-13 that we are to judge those in the church, not those outside the church. What are we judging? Sinful behavior of course. For the incestuous man this meant potential excommunication.

Of course, sometimes God doesn't wait for the church to initiate procedures, but takes disciplinary action Himself. This seems to be true in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and the abusers of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11). But there is no indication that God condemned them to hell. These people are presented as part of the church, which is why their sins were so grievous in the first place. In reference to the Corinthians' abuses of the Lord's Supper, Paul says that some of them "sleep," which is a euphemism for a Christian's death (1 Cor 11:30).

The same is true in the case of the incestuous man. Paul said in 1 Cor 5:5 that God would allow Satan to afflict his body—"the destruction of the flesh"—with the aim that he would be restored to spiritual wellness—"that his spirit may be saved." Paul uses the word save [s&#333;z&#333;] here as a play on words contrasting physical illness with spiritual wellness. S&#333;z&#333; is often used in the NT to refer to restoration to wellness (compare Matt 9:21-22; Mark 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 10:52; Luke 7:50; 8:36, 48, 50; 17:19; 18:42; Acts 4:9; 14:9; James 5:15). The errant believer needed restoration to be properly prepared for the Judgment Seat of the Christ ("the day of the Lord Jesus").

As Christians committed to grace, we can face the reality of believers who sin. God teaches us to deal with it, not deny it or sweep it under the carpet of "false profession." Since discipline has the goal of restoration, it is an extension of God's grace available to fallen believers. http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1998/98F2...

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465180
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read what the official teaching of the Church says????
Rose, what does the bible say???
IMO you are the one instigating.
No I am not ..if it seems that way I am sorry.

I am not asking fir a site or a catechism .

I am asking you as a Catholic where you think these,babies
Are.

When I was much younger..the CC taught us we can actually baptize a baby or any baptized person ourselves ourselves so they go to heaven if they are in imminent danger of death.

Implying that is baptism itself that saves people.

I was a very studious CHILD and always got A in Religion.

I know I was taught baptized babies go to LIMBO.

Where they are NOT WITH Jesus

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465181
Jul 23, 2013
 
...taught UN BAPTIZED babies go to Limbo
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465182
Jul 23, 2013
 
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, contrary to your personal opinion and experience, there are Orthodox Christians who believe in the IC. And they aren't considered heretical. And the majority support reunification according to Nicks own poll. You two apparently are in the minority.
The conclusions of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Theological Commission as well as its Bishop’s Synod, both of which contain members of pro- and anti-ecumenical leanings, were in favor for the time being of remaining full members of the WCC and the CEC. Significantly, both the Commission and the Synod made a specific point of saying that decisions of how and whether to take part in ecumenical organizations must be taken on a pan-Orthodox level. A similar resolution has just been taken by the Serbian Orthodox Church: to remain for now, and to take the final decision together with the other Orthodox Churches. This is of course immensely appropriate in that (a) relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox are clearly a matter of reflection for the whole Orthodox Church,(b) all canonical Orthodox Churches, with the recent exception of Georgia, are in fact full members of the WCC, and (c) ecumenical involvement has been explicitly affirmed in the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences as well as other high-level pan-Orthodox fora. As all the Orthodox Churches necessarily come to reflect upon questions of ecumenical involvement, it is useful to gain some perspective on the literature and views of those who oppose it.

http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/boutene...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465183
Jul 23, 2013
 
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus said "If ye abide in me and I abide in you, then you can ask anything ".Jesus wants us to have fellowship with Him but as GIF/Kay just said, Jesus is NOT going into a honky tonk and set down with a bunch of drunks doing what ever drunks do.
another Scripture says our body is the temple(Saved) of God, and God will not reside in an unclean(sinful) Temple.
if you et al cant understand that, I feel sorry for you on Judgement Day.
First of all, the Judgement for believers is not the same Judgement for unbelievers.
Until the two of you grasp the difference between justification and sanctification, salvation passages and rewards passages, etc., you will constantly contradict yourselves, and embrace that which is not sturdy and true.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465184
Jul 23, 2013
 
The Biblical Distinction Between Eternal Salvation And Eternal Rewards:
A Key to Proper Exegesis

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilki...

I encourage all to read this.

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465185
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

confrinting with the word wrote:
who="RoSesz"
Yes ..are you a Catholic..if so the question STILL is DO babies..born and unborn go to be with JESUS or some other place ..as I was taught.
Limbo.
There are sights about GODS mercy ..We hope this...
But not one Catholic Cathplicwill answer.
And I think you are just instigating IMO..
BUT if you a 're a Catholic ..where do they go.
**********
The Catholic teaching on 'limbo' was discontinued/refuted in the recent past. I don't recall just when. There was never any scriptural foundation for that teaching anyway.
KayMarie
Well he could have just said that ..I personally from WhAT I have read about Jesus wanting the children WITH HIM..That those babies ARE with Jesus.

Well evidently some still believe it exists ..which is confusing as ing IMO.

As they believe you need baptism to go to heaven
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e0...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465186
Jul 23, 2013
 
Difficulties Which Arise from
Failing to Recognize this Distinction

A. Distorting the Gospel Message

If passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 refer to obtaining eternal salvation, then believers must work to obtain it:

"Run in such a way that you may obtain it."
1 Cor 9:24

"I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."
1 Cor 9:27

"I press toward the goal of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."
Phil 3:14

However, we know from many NT passages that this is not the case. Eternal salvation is absolutely free to the recipient (John 4:10; Rom 3:24; 4: 3-8; Eph 2:9; Rev 22:17). Jesus paid the whole price. We pay nothing. We are saved the moment we believe Jesus’ promise to give eternal life to all who trust Him for it (John 5:24; 6:47).

Unlike eternal salvation, eternal rewards are not free. They are earned by work done. Paul said in 2 Cor 5:10 that "all [believers] must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." Similarly, the Lord Jesus said the He will "reward each according to his works" (Matt 16:27, emphasis added). Eternal salvation is not "according to what [one] has done" and is not "according to [one’s] works."

In some places eternal salvation and eternal rewards are contrasted in the same paragraph. For example, in 1 Cor 3:14-15 Paul said: "If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." The unproductive believer is saved even though his works are burned up. However, if a believer’s works endure the test of fire, then in addition he will be rewarded. Compare also Rom 14:8-12; 2 Tim 2:11-13; Rev 22:14-17.

Since eternal rewards are not the same as eternal salvation, there is no contradiction of the Gospel in passages conditioning eternal rewards on perseverance in good works.

To understand passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 as being Gospel passages is to distort the Gospel by suggesting that ongoing good works are a requirement for obtaining eternal salvation.

More here:
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilki...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465187
Jul 23, 2013
 
Mark 16:16 Isn't Teaching That You Must
Be Water Baptized to Go to Heaven

There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn't teaching that water baptism is a condition of eternal salvation:

The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven.
The Gospel never changes.
There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.
Let's briefly consider each of those points in more detail.

Condemnation Is for Unbelief Only
Jesus didn't say, "He who is not baptized will be condemned." Neither did He say, "He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned." Rather, He said, "He who does not believe will be condemned." By this our Lord made it clear that faith alone was necessary to a void eternal condemnation. He said the same thing in John 3:18: "He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God;" (see also John 5:24; 6:47).

The Apostles Preached Salvation by Faith Alone
Two of the disciples in the inner circle were Peter and John. Both of them heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16. Yet both of them taught that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and Him alone.

Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10:34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48).

The apostle John wrote an evangelistic book that we call the Gospel of John. He repeatedly indicated that faith is the only condition of eternal salvation. Yet not once in all of John's Gospel, written after the event recorded in Mark 16:16 occurred, did John condition eternal salvation upon water baptism.(In fact, Christian water baptism is not even mentioned in John's Gospel.)

The Gospel Never Changes
"What about the thief on the cross?" I would say. "Jesus said he would be with Him that day in Paradise, yet he was never baptized."

The response I would get was inevitably this: That was before Pentecost. After Pentecost, you have to be baptized in order to be saved.

What these students were telling me was that the Gospel had changed Before Jesus' resurrection and the coming of the Spirit a person was saved without water baptism. After that water baptism is required.

That is an impossible position to defend since the apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age (cf. Rom 4:1-8; Gal 3:6-14). The Gospel has always been, and always will be, by grace through faith plus nothing. We find this in the first book in the Bible (Gen 3:15; 15:6) and in the last book in the Bible (Rev 22:17).

The NT Gives Examples of Salvation Before Baptism
In addition to the thief on the cross, there are other NT examples of people who were saved without being baptized. Martha (John 11:25-27) is one. Another is Cornelius and his household. According to Acts 10:43-48, they were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins. At that very moment, before they were baptized with water, they were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

These four points prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that you must be water baptized to go to heaven. However, the question still remains as to what Mark 16:16 does mean. More here:
http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1995/95C2...

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465188
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I was hoping that this foolishness of OSAS would be hinderd if not stopped since it divides, but DOM comes back and they pick up again with a renewed vengeance.
I just don't understand why they cant see it that if you sin, after you are Saved, and don't confess that sin, you are not going to Heaven.
and we explain it to them and make it so simple that even a 3 y/o child could understand.
Satan has blinded them just as he did those in the day of Peter
Cowboy

When this came up a few,days ago..both Marge and I also were questioning the posts concerning Hebrews about there being no sacrifice left

BUT I am sure both of us..I KNOW I DID ..specify that we were talking About a falling away or sinning THAT WAS SINCERELY REPENTED OF.

That the Spirit calls one to REPENT when you stray.

This This was before Dom came back

I believe I also could not understand any believer who could continually ignore the Spirit as He can be very persistent
And unyielding if He calls..one to repent

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465189
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Romans 2:13

This verse is a famous crux text in Romans: "For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."

This verse appears to teach justification by works. Faith isn’t even mentioned here. This verse doesn’t teach justification by faith plus works, but merely justification by works. And, it should be noted that this verse is talking about justification "in the sight of God." It is not talking about justification before men.

This verse has long perplexed commentators, since it appears to contradict Paul’s point in the very next chapter of Romans! There he writes: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (Rom 3:28). And again in chapter 4, as already noted, he writes, "To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom 4:5).

What is going on here?

The solution is easily seen if we examine the context. We realize then whom Paul was addressing and what his subject was in Romans 2. He was talking to self-righteous Jewish legalists who thought that they could be justified before God by keeping the Law of Moses. In chapter 2 he showed them that this is impossible. Verse 13 asserts that it isn’t enough to simply be a hearer of the law. To be saved by works one would have to be a doer of the law. This, of course, no one can do—as Paul directly asserts in chapters 3 and 4!

C. E. B. Cranfield concurs: "In its context in Romans this sentence can hardly be intended to imply that there are some who are doers of the law in the sense that they so fulfill it as to earn God’s justification."10 So, too, does Anders Nygren:

Far from being safe because he knows the law, the Jew will stand under the judgment of the law. It is the law, in which he reposes his confidence, which is the power which condemns him and turns him over to the wrath of God. His knowledge of the law takes away from him all excuse for his sin. The law cannot save him from his doom. "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (vs. 13).11

Paul is speaking hypothetically in v 13, just as the Lord Jesus did with the rich young ruler. Jesus used the Law to show him that he was a sinner in need of the Savior (see Luke 18:18-27). Mark notes in his account of this exchange that Jesus told the disciples, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:24b). The rich young ruler thought his works were good enough to justify him before God. He felt that his riches proved that he was good. Many Jewish people of that day felt that riches were a sign that one had right standing before God.12

When this man asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus pointed him to the Law, not because he could be saved by keeping it, but because he needed to realize that no one could be justified by keeping that Law, himself included.

Thus Rom 2:13 actually shows the impossibility of justification by works before God since no one is a doer of the Law (except the Law-giver Himself, the Lord Jesus).
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996ii/Wilk...

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465190
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think that John made it. Christians don't cry "in sorrow" when a person passes away.
John NEVER LEFT a testimony that he was Born Again or that he was Saved, only that he had Salvation because of his church status, and none of us were Saved because we didn't attend his church.
a belief and attitude much different than we read from Hermi and Sera
Well I pray he did ..And leave it to the Lord as we all.must .

who knows,his heart before he left the earth ..

I BELUEVE the Spirit comes to us where we are at..where we live ..even up to the moment of death..

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 448,881 - 448,900 of530,113
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

416 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min scaritual 716,657
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 min Awesome Holy dr Shrink 598,767
Americans are dick heads and the world is laugh... (Apr '10) 14 min Richard 168
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 19 min Jim Justice 114,646
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr Mudaliar 4,086
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr susanblange 36,409
Being Gay is not wrong! (Mar '07) 1 hr andet1987 157
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr onemale 255,719
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr number four 223,213
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr WildWeirdWillie 171,454
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 18 hr Gabric 62
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••