[Dee]

Do you guys ever answer the questions? You only sling more mud in the hopes of changing the subject, and putting us on the defense. Answer the questions, Like I do.

Bill, show me where I stated that the Pope sent a comittee to gather all the writings, and show me where I stated that a pope determined which would be used. The Pope in conjunction with hundreds of other Bishops did. Yes, the Church Fathers responsibility was to weed out spurious writings, but how would they know which belonged and which didn't. Was it luck, or were they aided by the Holy Spirit?

If your contention, regarding teaching & worship being far more Protestant before the Catholic Catechism was introduced, then Bill, prove it! In fact, I'll issue you a challenge. You show us all your proof indicating what you say, and I'll prove that the teaching and worship was not only Catholic-like, but entirely Catholic. Of course, you realize that the Catholic Catechism wasn't introduced iuntil 1992.

For the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you mean't the early, religious instruction handbooks, that date back to the early Church.

You let me know which Catechism(s) you are talking about, and then let me know if you except my challenge.

Dee, your a Moderator. Please don't go changing the subject on this thread. Why don't you start a new one with the topic of your choice.

You are 100% correct Pecci. I just did.[/color]

 

[S.Sumner]

The new testament was a conglomeration of more ancient texts,
I would have to assume that they used those texts.
That would seem only proper considering that was all they had to use.

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

No the actual difference in this case is the catholic church is trying to take credit for GOD'S WORK. The New Testement came into existance exactly the same way the Old Testement did. As deciples were inspired by GOD to teach and write, they did. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and all the rest, were lead by GOD to do so and did. These manuscripts were copied and and passed along, and would have, and have been, passed on REGARDLESS of ANY DENOMONATIONAL CLAIMS on credit.
Just as Christ quoted Old Testement scripture, deciples of the New Covenant quoted scripture from the New Covenant (Testement) as it became available to them. There is no great mystery here, and ALL THE GLORY goes to GOD, not someone's church.

No. The Catholic Church still insists that the Bible was inspired by God, or that it is God's Word. The claim that the Catholic Church makes is that it was the only institution with the credibility to discern which books were authentically God's Word, and which were not.

Take for example the Arian Heresy. It was one of a number of gnostic heresies. It cropped up in the 4th Century - the same century the Bible was cannonized.

The Arian Heresy was supported by Arius and Eusebius. It was squashed by St. Alexander, and I think St. Athanasius had a hand in it.

The way this Heresy was dealt with was NOT by pointing to Sacred Scripture. It wasn't cannonized yet. Yes they HAD the 4 gospels around, but there were other gospels around too. So how did they determine which Gospel was the right version?

It wasn't a matter of what, it was a matter of who. Who had the credibility to speak on matters of Christ's divinity. Those with the best credibility were those who clung to the Oral Tradition.

The people that did the work then were the majority, but Christiian Faith at that time was no more one single entity than it is now.

Ahh. How do you explain this part from the Nicene Creed then? "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." I put the emphasis on the word "one" because that certainly seems to imply that the Faith was indeed a "single entity". There were no multiple versions. There was a one true faith, and all the other versions are heresies.

And you can bet that at the time of the Arian Heresy, there were people who thought that Christianity was a "big tent" so-to-speak and could include those people who thought Christ was divine and those people who didn't believe Christ was divine. And it was settled that, no, there was only one truth about Christ and he was divine - period.

 

[williamlayton]

Christ is who He said He is--God.
Blessings

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Christ is who He said He is--God.

How do you know He really said this?

What if there is another ancient document in which Jesus doesn't claim to be God?

(playing devil's advocate here, although, I've developed a trust that you play this game very well, Bill)

 

[williamlayton]

Hummm--on some points you are correct.
I can only speak for myownself on this matter--though most believers would say the same in different words.
I cannot explain how I know, in what method or fashion the Lord led me too this knowledge. It in reality, is not knowledge, in fact it is not faith--as many would define faith.
Is it a flash of light---maybe, but not as dramatic as some preachers would define it in a sermon. In fact for me it was, as best I can put it in words--and that is totally impossible--a small glimpse of light peeking thru the shade in the early morning daybreak. I hope this does not come across as an overly dramatic wording as the oft quoted "It was a dark and stormy night."
In fact it was not dramatic--I hope I have not ruined a Sunday sermon for some of you preachers. No clap of thunder, I was not knocked too my knees, I did not faint. It was not a startingly epiphany.
It was an epiphany though.
For me, your wordings are as important as mine, it was a time of questioning--questioning God--questioning my own faith that the reality of it all---I hate too use this trite wording here, but I find no other thoughts--became clear.
I did believe--beyond faith even--I did know--really know--all that I had been taught or learned. There was not a shred of question.
It was not me that came too a conclusion that I could trust all that I had learned. I was given faith.
It is true that I could verify my conclusions but, I was not the author of my faith.
Free will?? What can I say--I don't know if I could have rejected this reality or not because I did not reject it but only accepted it.
It would have been a lot more simple if God had just knocked me on the floor and opened heaven before my eyes.
Simplicity is a hard thing too accept--we want things much more complicated than they are.
Blessings

 

[Bob Riebe]

That one true faith, was again revealed and proven, when the Spirit Of Truth, made Himself present to that same 'Catholic Church', that was given that Devine gift of recognizing the inspired WORDS OF GOD, and thus proclaiming our New Testament Canon.
----------------------------------------------

Pecci, your ideas is correct, your grammar is not.

It would be correctly: that same catholic 'Church`- as catholic ia an adjective meaning "universal".

Turning it into a noun meaning the opposite, was th act of men during a time in which congregations began to futher separate into camps with man-made definitions, long before more recents groups such as Baptists, Lutherans, Assemblies of God (does that name still exist) came into being.

 

[Pecci]

Pecci, your ideas is correct, your grammar is not.

It would be correctly: that same catholic 'Church`- as catholic ia an adjective meaning "universal".

Turning it into a noun meaning the opposite, was th act of men during a time in which congregations began to futher separate into camps with man-made definitions, long before more recents groups such as Baptists, Lutherans, Assemblies of God (does that name still exist) came into being.

I assume you are trying to dispute the fact that the "catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" are one and the same. If you succeed in doing so, then you successfully prove it false, and oddly (sadly) enough, no better, and no more truthful than all the other Christian faiths. --- So Bill, you tell me where that same church is today that produced the New Testament, wrote the Nicene Creed and the one that dates itelf back to Christ and the apostles. This one true faith must exist always, because Christ Himself said it would. --- Where is it? --- It cannot be all of the other 38,000 different Christian denominations, because as a group, they are not"one". Each one accuses the other of teaching false doctrine. --- They do not teach the same doctrines, that the "catholic" Church taught, during the first few centuries, and they do not date back to within 1500 yrs. of the apostles. If you do say it is one of those 38,000, tell us which one it is and let's research the facts, from any reliable source of history. If you say it doesn't exist any longer, then you are denying the words and promises of Christ. You would also be able to provide proof of when it failed, died, taught falsely, and went corrupt. All of these, by the way, are clearly contrary to Scripture.

To clarify my point, it is my contention that this "catholic Church" is the one and the same, "Catholic Church." Back then there was only "one holy, catholic and apostolic church. To this very day, there still is, and there will always be, until the end of the world. I challenge you to show me documented proof that it is not.

 

[Bob Riebe]

I assume you are trying to dispute the fact that the "catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" are one and the same. If you succeed in doing so, then you successfully prove it false, and oddly (sadly) enough, no better, and no more truthful than all the other Christian faiths. --- So Bill, you tell me where that same church is today that produced the New Testament, wrote the Nicene Creed and the one that dates itelf back to Christ and the apostles. This one true faith must exist always, because Christ Himself said it would. --- Where is it? --- It cannot be all of the other 38,000 different Christian denominations, because as a group, they are not"one". Each one accuses the other of teaching false doctrine. --- They do not teach the same doctrines, that the "catholic" Church taught, during the first few centuries, and they do not date back to within 1500 yrs. of the apostles. If you do say it is one of those 38,000, tell us which one it is and let's research the facts, from any reliable source of history. If you say it doesn't exist any longer, then you are denying the words and promises of Christ. You would also be able to provide proof of when it failed, died, taught falsely, and went corrupt. All of these, by the way, are clearly contrary to Scripture.

To clarify my point, it is my contention that this "catholic Church" is the one and the same, "Catholic Church." Back then there was only "one holy, catholic and apostolic church. To this very day, there still is, and there will always be, until the end of the world. I challenge you to show me documented proof that it is not.
[/quote]

I think you mean me.

One catholic and apostolic church: one universal church which teaches the Word as taught by the apostles.

That is ANY congregation who teaches the Words of Jesus as the Apostles were annointed to do by the Holy Ghost, period.

That does not mean that there cannot be two congregations both with the same mast-head as what ever dogma they followed, yet one is still in the catholic Faith, and the other some hee bee-gee bee religion, glorifying man, regarless of the mast-head on their church envelopes.


There is one Faith, and to say there is more than one Faith is blasphemy.
There are other Christ based dogmas, and a whole bunch of false eligions, but any congregation that preaches that Jesus is the way, the ONLY way, is in the catholic (universal) church that teaches the only Faith.
Taking a adjective that connected and separated congregations of believers, from congregations of disbelievers and making it into a noun, was NOT good politics; it only hastened the further division of an already fracturing church.

Roman Catholic, Orthodox churches, Baptists, Lutherans, and most of the TV preachers congregations are all members of the catholic and apostolic Church, whether some like it or not.

Now Arnold Murray, I am not sure.
Bob
[/color]

 

[Pecci]

I think you mean me.

(1)[/color] One catholic and apostolic church: one universal church which teaches the Word as taught by the apostles.

That is ANY congregation who teaches the Words of Jesus as the Apostles were annointed to do by the Holy Ghost, period.

That does not mean that there cannot be two congregations both with the same mast-head as what ever dogma they followed, yet one is still in the catholic Faith, and the other some hee bee-gee bee religion, glorifying man, regarless of the mast-head on their church envelopes.


There is one Faith, and to say there is more than one Faith is blasphemy.
There are other Christ based dogmas, and a whole bunch of false eligions, but any congregation that preaches that Jesus is the way, the ONLY way, is in the catholic (universal) church that teaches the only Faith.
Taking a adjective that connected and separated congregations of believers, from congregations of disbelievers and making it into a noun, was NOT good politics; it only hastened the further division of an already fracturing church.

Roman Catholic, Orthodox churches, Baptists, Lutherans, and most of the TV preachers congregations are all members of the catholic and apostolic Church, whether some like it or not.

Now Arnold Murray, I am not sure.
Bob
[/color]
[/quote]

(1)[/color] That's right, but there is only one Church that can date itself back to those apostles and only one that teaches exactly as they had taught.

As far as the rest of your post, you conveniently leave out one thing ..... ONE TRUTH!

John 17:17-23

Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.

As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.

And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,

I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

There can be only one truth. All else, other than that one truth, is false.

Let me make it clear that I am not saying all other Christian faiths are all wrong. All have various amounts of truth, but only one faith (Church) has all truth. That is the one that can date itself back to Jesus and the apostles. The only one that does not have a human founder! It is the Catholic Church!

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

That is ANY congregation who teaches the Words of Jesus as the Apostles were annointed to do by the Holy Ghost, period.

You type truthful words. But lets take a closer look at this.

Christ's words: "this is my body...this is my blood"

So. By your statement, we can eliminate all those congregations who do not"teach the words of Jesus as the apostles were annointed to do by the Holy Ghost"

This would eliminate most of the denominations right there. I think you'd only have Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and of course Catholics who are steadfastly holding to the Apostolic interpretation of those words spoken by Christ.

Now the Catholic Church makes the claim that her way of interpreting these particular words of Jesus is the same way the Apostles understood it. If the RC Church is correct she should have some evidence to support her claim. Evidence of writings from not just the apostles, but people who studied underneath the apostles...and people who studied underneath those who studied underneath the apostles...and so forth.

This is what Apologetics is all about. We should be able to demonstrate that our faith is the authentic faith handed down from the Apostles. So we should be able to dig up writings from various centuries that speak to the matter of the Eucharist.

If you refuse to look for yourself, Maybe Pecci can dig up some references. If not, give me some time...

 

[Pecci]

That is ANY congregation who teaches the Words of Jesus as the Apostles were annointed to do by the Holy Ghost, period.

This is what Apologetics is all about. We should be able to demonstrate that our faith is the authentic faith handed down from the Apostles. So we should be able to dig up writings from various centuries that speak to the matter of the Eucharist.

If you refuse to look for yourself, Maybe Pecci can dig up some references. If not, give me some time...

Here is a collection of Early Church references to the Eucharist:

The Didache (Did-Ah-Key), or teaching of the Apostles, 9:1
Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the Name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said, "Do not give that which is Holy to dogs." Matthew 7:6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7:3, 106AD
"I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 65-66, 148 A.D.
"But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to so be it. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believesthat the things we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutationare nourished, IS THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THAT JESUS WHO WAS MADE FLESH. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22(Mystagogic 4)6, 350AD
"Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37, 383AD
"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the Word of GOD has been made over into the Body of GOD the Word."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments, 4:4:14, 390AD
"You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the Flesh of Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Corinthians, 24:4:7, 392AD
"When you see the Body of Christ lying on the altar, say to yourself, Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner but free...This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood, the other of water, for all the world. This is the body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, 227, 393AD
"The Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of GOD, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of GOD, is the Blood of Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 26:27, 428AD
"He states demonstratively: 'This is My Body,' and 'This is My Blood', lest you might suppose the things you see are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful GOD the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, Apocriticus, 3:23, 400 AD
"Christ took the bread and the cup, each in similar fashion, and said, 'This is My Body and this is My Blood'. Not a figure of His Body nor a figure of His Blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His Body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth. Holy Eucharist. The True Presence of Our Lord..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are many more references to early church writings of the True Presence.
The dates of these writings range through every century from 70 A.D. to 743 A.D..
Jxxx refers to "The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens, a 3 volume set.
Didache, 9:1. J6
Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 7:3. J54a
Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 3:2. J56
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2. J64
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66. J128
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4. J234
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33:2, 5:2:2. J240,249
Tertullian, Prayer 6:2, 19:1. J300a,301
Tertullian, The Crown 3:2. J367
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21. J394i
Clement of Alexandria, Instruct Children 2:2:19:4. J410
Origen, Homilies On Exodus Hom 13:3. J490
Origen, Homilies on Numbers Hom 7:2. J491
Cyprian, The Lapsed 15. J551
Aphraates, Treatises 12:6. J689
Ephraim, Homilies 4:4,4:6. *J707 J708
Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized J802
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Letters 21-23 Mystagogic 1:7,4:3,6,9 J840-846,848,850,853j
Hilary, The Trinity 8:14 J870
Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 37. J1035
Gregory of Nyssa, Day of Lights Jaeger Vol 9, p225. J1062
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comment on Matt 26:26. J1113e,f,n
Chrysostom, Homilies on Penance 9. J1137
Chrysostom, Homilies on Judas 1:6. J1157
Chrysostom, On Matthew 82:4. J1179
Chrysostom, On First Corinthians 24:4:7. J1195
Chrysostom, On Second Timothy 2:4. J1207
Ambrose, The Faith 4:10:124. J1270
Ambrose, The Mysteries 9:50,58. J1333-1334, *J1339-1340
Jerome, Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26. J1390
Augustine, Letter to Boniface 98:9. J1424
Augustine, Sermons 227+. J1519-1520, *J1524, J1633, J1716
Augustine, Homilies on John 26:13. J1824
Cyril of Alexander, Commentary on Matthew 26:27. J2101
Macarius the Magnesian, Apocriticus 3:23. J2166
Damascene, Source of Knowledge 3:4:13. J2371


B.Stanely

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Beautifully done Pecci!

Those dates are so interesting. You can see that this is the way Christians thougth in the first century, the second century.

This is what it means to be Apostolic. To have some means of demonstrating that a particular tenet was indeed the same tenet taught by the Apostles. It wasn't something totally made up some 1300 years later. And, just as importantly, it was something the Apostles taught that was so important that it didn't get dropped. I think Paul had some belief that Christ's second coming would happen in his lifetime. That would be an example of a teaching that was not part of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Bob Riebe]

The only "truth" anyone has to teach or preach, and the quotes of man above are preaching,(There is a difference) is that: No one can come to the father but by Jesus, end of story. Truth in full.

That means if the congregation is taught to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all, and ANY who believes in his death and resurrection is saved, without any other works, is saved; the truth has been taught.

Any thing beyond that is man's dogma, with MAN"s opinion.

As a Christian, one will by nature grow in Fatih, if you believe in your heart the Holy Ghost will guide you, or at the very least your angels will have a direct line, the angels of the unsaved do not have, and when you get stupid, help will arrive shortly.
That does not mean one cannot be stupid to the point of hellfire, but woe unto one who is so arrogant.

In summary, TRUTH Is not man's dogma, TRUTH is God sent his Son to die for all, and ANY who accept this TRUTH are saved, alll else is secondary.

Bob
PS
If the Orthodox, Romans, and Coptics, and Anglican can tie there roots directly, well Luther was a Roman Catholic, so the Lutherans can use this connection also.
Other denminations history I am not fully aware of but some may also tie back due to founders being connected to an older denomination before finding fault with that dogma and creating their dogma.
PPS
Peter was the rock, at least partly because he was a Jew who now had to go tell other Jews to quit going to the Temple with the old ways, as God had replaced all sacrifices by sacrificing His own Son.
Or one could say Peter was the apostle to the Jews, along with most of the disciples, and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.
Of course the Bible does say there wre many unamed followers of Jesus who also spread the Word, and their history is mostly lost.

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

The only "truth" anyone has to teach or preach, and the quotes of man above are preaching,(There is a difference) is that: No one can come to the father but by Jesus, end of story. Truth in full.

Is this the fullness of Truth "as the Apostles were annointed to [teach]"? Did the Apostles believe that this is all that mattered?

If this is the truth in full, then why all the verbiage in the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying that all one needs to do is believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead to save us from our sins. Why do we need the Acts of the Apostles? And all the epistles? Surely we don't need that many words to say what you said in one sentence.

That means if the congregation is taught to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all, and ANY who believes in his death and resurrection is saved, without any other works, is saved; the truth has been taught.

Any thing beyond that is man's dogma, with MAN"s opinion.

So what did Christ mean by "this is my body?" Christ had to have intended something by it. And if he meant something, then that was His opinion, a divine opinion.

As a Christian on will, by nature, as if you believe in you heart, the Holy Ghost will guide you, or at the very least you angels will have a direct line the angels of the unsaved do not have, and when you get stupid, help will arrive shortly.

So can the Holy Ghost and/or your angel lead you the wrong way? How do you discern whether you are being lead by your angel, or a demon?

In summary, TRUTH Is not man's dogma, TRUTH is God sent his Son to die for all, and ANY who accept this TRUTH are saved, alll else is secondary.

So whether God's son married Mary Magdalene and begat children is secondary?

 

[Pascal Baylon]

That means if the congregation is taught to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all, and ANY who believes in his death and resurrection is saved, without any other works, is saved; the truth has been taught.

But that's not Biblically true.

"Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins; and you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

"Now, why delay? Have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name." Acts 22:16

Both of these imply baptism is necessary for the forgivness of sins. This is a work.

I don't have time to find the verse now but there's another verse where Jesus says to those who've not 'fed him when he was hungry, visited him when he's sick and imprisoned, sheltered him when he's cold' that they must go to the 'eternal fire, reserved for Satan and his minions'. (Obviously this is not word for word as I'm paraphrasing for memory.)

We'll be judged and saved, in part at least, by our actions.

If we love Jesus we'll believe in him, and if we believe and love Jesus, we'll do what he's asked us to do.

 

[Bob Riebe]

Go read what I wrote again (I erased and forgot to rewrite part, so it made no sense)

The Bible besides telling of how to be saved, is also written in how to deal with the world, remember Jesus was rewiting everything for the Jews, much less the rest rest of the world.

If you have Faith, works will follow. To put any part of salvation on works , besides the one work man can do, BELIEVE, is making man as important as God; that is not only a sin, but a damning sin.

There are other threads or post about hypocritcal "christians", talk the talk, but walk a very different walk. Some may actually be in the Faith, but it is very, very weak, and the flesh rules.
I am not going to rewrite it here, but it is there.
Bob

PS--The water does nothing, it is being baptised in Holy Ghost, as Jesus was that does something.
One must first believe before the Holy Ghost will come near one, so the baptism is secondary.

 

[Pascal Baylon]

If you have Faith, works will follow.

I agree with you on this.

To put any part of salvation on works , besides the one work man can do, BELIEVE, is making man as important as God; that is not only a sin, but a damning sin

This I do not agree with you on. "Faith without works is dead". I will agree that one must have faith first, but that I do believe that works plays a part in salvation. I believe the Bible is clear on that. I also do not believe that this makes man as important as God, and I have difficulty seeing how you do (unless you thought I was saying faith needn't come first or be any part of the equation). In the Old Testament the entire act of salvation was work-based and the Jews definitally didn't see themselves on par with God. Do you believe God fully changed his position on works in the human race with the coming of His Son? (This is a genuine question, not at attack or sarcasm).

 

[Bob Riebe]

If you have Faith, works will follow.

I agree with you on this.

To put any part of salvation on works , besides the one work man can do, BELIEVE, is making man as important as God; that is not only a sin, but a damning sin

This I do not agree with you on. "Faith without works is dead". I will agree that one must have faith first, but that I do believe that works plays a part in salvation. I believe the Bible is clear on that. I also do not believe that this makes man as important as God, and I have difficulty seeing how you do (unless you thought I was saying faith needn't come first or be any part of the equation). In the Old Testament the entire act of salvation was work-based and the Jews definitally didn't see themselves on par with God. Do you believe God fully changed his position on works in the human race with the coming of His Son? (This is a genuine question, not at attack or sarcasm).

The Old Testament was not entirely work based, the sacrifice at the Temple was an act paying heed to God, not a work of man; and Daniel in the Lion Den was one hundred percent Faith in God, as were the three men in the fiery furnace.

It was Faith based, but as The Lamb had not been sacrificed yet, there were acts of sacrifice that had to be met. One could not simply call on the blood of Jesus, one had to pay tribute to the Glory of God.

 

[Pascal Baylon]

The Old Testament was not entirely work based, the sacrifice at the Temple was an act paying heed to God, not a work of man;

And so is baptism, and helping the sick and visiting the infirm/imprisoned are also acts that pay heed to God. You contradict yourself here: an act is a work. The words 'work' and 'act' are interchangable. Both baptism and the OT sacrifices are/were acts instituted by God (God told Moses how to do the sacrafices, Jesus showed us how to be baptised) that help us in our salvation.

Daniel in the Lion Den was one hundred percent Faith in God, as were the three men in the fiery furnace.

This is true, but just because God institutes a normal way for us to be saved does not mean that he cannot bend the rules when he wants. Besides, these are both physical salvations. Ours is a spiritual salvation (not to say we won't occasionally ask God to save us from something physical of course). I've already said I do believe Faith plays a HUGE part in Salvation. I just don't discredit the role of works.

It was Faith based, but as The Lamb had not been sacrificed yet, there were acts of sacrifice that had to be met. One could not simply call on the blood of Jesus, one had to pay tribute to the Glory of God.

While we don't necessarily have to 'pay tribute' anymore, we need the sacrifice of Jesus, we still need to bring him glory. He said that "when you did this to the least of my brethren you did this to me." We do these things for, to, and with Jesus. He casts into **** those who do not do these things, based on the fact that they did not do them. That says quite plainly to me that works are necessary for salvation.