₦airaland Forum

In your previous thread you said it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible and you also admitted that they "canonized" it. And that means that they decided which books should and should not be in the Bible and after their compilation they declared it the holy, sacred and inerrant word of God by divine and ecclesiastical authority.

So why are you now saying "if the Bible is a Catholic book, " When you have already implied that in ur statement here:

and just incase you dont know where to start from, here's another option:

Matthew 25

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


i dont see any mention of faith there but i am sure, as usual, you concoct what you want out of the passage

aletheia:
^Nonsense! Open the book of Job and see how many questions God asked Job. Read the gospels and see how Jesus often started his teaching with questions.

have you not also seen in the gospels where Jesus refuses to answer a meaningless question?

Typical Catholic (una too dey fear to open Bible). Afraid of asking questions. Afraid of studying your bible. So you think your "works" will get you into "Purgatory".

we are afraid to study the bible but when i told you there's only one place in scripture where the bible mentions 'faith alone', you were going to argue with me that it didnt exist until i showed you

in short i can go on and get into a meaningless exchange of words with you and i am sure thats what you want but i am always more interested in getting to the heart of the matter

*pls in any subsequent posts, try to show some respect for my spiritual family - The Catholic Church. The Pope, Mary, the Angels, these are beings i hold sacred and in high esteem. you might not love them but pls show the minimum respect required for a meaningful insult_free discussion to take place. thanx*

If you want to discuss Mary, Popes, purgatory etc, why dont you open other threads for each. i'm willing to discuss in a clear and transparent way all these topics. Not when i bring up a verse about faith and works, you start telling me about Popes etc. why are you scared to discuss one thing at a time?

this thread is still about the role of faith and works in salvation and the bible says:

James 2:24: "you see that a person is considered righteous by what they do, NOT by faith alone.

You can't shout down the truth!

Can you pls count the number of questions you have asked me in this one post? They are about ten. You just want to smother the truth with many words because I know that if I answer these ten, you'll only ask twenty more. Its only someone with a deceptive motive that asks this many questions in one instance. So until you are ready for a clear and transparent discussion on the role of faith and work in salvation, I still say:

James 2:24: "you see that a person is considered righteous by what they do, NOT by faith alone.

You can't shout down the truth!

5solas:
It is the fountain from which all good works spring.

are you saying that an atheist who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, forgives wrong done to him etc has not done good works

Amazing stories! But some of us don't need to hear testimonies like this to believe. I believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that includes everything it teaches. 100%.

aletheia:
So the Buddhist/Muslim etc who has "good works" has "genuine faith"?

In the year that King Uzziah died when Isaiah saw the vision of the Lord. . .tell me: How was his sin atoned for and his guilt taken away? Was it by means of his "works"?

The muslim that does good works in Allah's name has genuine faith in Allah; the buddhist who does good works in Buddha's name has genuine faith in Buddha; so also the christian who does good works in Christ's name has genuine faith in Christ. He who does not good works in Christ's name has not genuine faith in Christ.

Isaiah's sins were atoned for after he did something. He said, in Isaiah 6:5: “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” If faith alone was needed, he would not have needed to say anything or feel or express any remorse. Because he always had faith, before and after the vision, so why was mercy not shown him before he said what he said?

aletheia:
^Story, story. Show us here the [b]"one place in scripture"

James 2: 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

How do you come to the conclusion that Peter's epistle was written in 67AD, couldn't it have been written in 64AD, shortly before he died?

Where was Peter when he was writing his 2nd letter?

Who founded the church that Paul was writing to in Romans?

We love all the Apostles and saints who have lived through the ages. They are all our apostles and we are the fruits of their labour, not just Paul.

Oh! So who was the first Pope and who was the Leader of the Church from inception?

And if Paul says in a letter "Demas has forsaken me, Crescens has left for Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia, only Luke is with me", does it mean that he didn't get support from Peter and the early church there and does it mean that Peter never set foot in Rome?

Could it be that your heart yearns for TRUTH? Are you looking for the Church that Jesus founded 2011 years ago which possesses the fullness of truth and the means for salvation? Are you seeking a place where the central theme is always love for God and man, a call to repentance, living a holy life as much as possible and ultimately seeking salvation?

Be CATHOLIC!

Well, unlike you, I am not a hypocrite. I believe in God, mazaje doesn't. But does that mean if he's saying something that is true I should be against it? No. My only permanent allegiance is with The Truth and it doesn't matter who says it.

Or have you forgotten that even demons call Jesus 'Son of David, holy one of Israel, Son of the Most High God' etc. Does that mean that you are a demon in disguise because you say the same? How do you reason sef?

I am not sure about John the Baptist's diet. I only said what I think. But since you seem to be hundred percent certain, no problem, I take your position for now.

Now can you answer my questions which are at the heart of this discussion?

And pls GO STRAIGHT TO THE POINT

If a man prophesies, casts out demons and performs many miracles in Jesus name, can he be said to have no faith?

If a man can cast out demons and prophesy IN JESUS NAME, can it be said that he has not faith in Jesus?

You guys just like confusing yourselves and others with many words.

FAITH ALONE is only found in one place in scripture. And it says there: 'faith alone, without works, cannot save'.

You can go ahead and spew any million words.

@may kelly, eben 2 & plappville, I am still awaiting your answers.

Since the day you became born again, have you committed any sin?

aletheia:
^Faith is not works. . .why is this difficult for you to apprehend? Is it your "works" that please God?Or is it. . .
^Faith is not works. . .signs of life do not constitute life. . .they only mark the presence of life.
Is it by our works that God quickened us in Christ while we were yet dead in our sins?And what is faith? Do you understand faith to be mere assent of the Lordship of Christ? It is not. If you have genuine faith. . .then the God-ordained works of righteousness will follow.
^

Who is the person that said 'faith is works'? Please tell me, I want to know. Or do you just feel like digressing?

Its the good works you do that make you to be considered to have "genuine faith" (as James points out. You can't be considered to have genuine faith if you haven't lived a good life to confirm it.

@olaadegbu, in both cases, the necessity or 'works' is highlighted. The farmer "gave out", the boy "didn't get in".

I think John the Baptist would have eaten bread but nowhere near as much as other men. And I drink what I think Jesus drank.

Can you now tell us what Jesus drank that made them call him a drunkard?

And tell us about the sour wine he drank on the cross.

And what the people were drinking during the Lord's supper in 1Cor 11:17-22 that was making them drunk.

"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."--James 2:24.

This is the only place in the whole of scripture that you find "FAITH ALONE", and see what it says.

Later you people will say you are following scripture, when all you do is twist it.

OLAADEGBU:
If you can be justified by works why then do you need faith?

i will answer you when you show me where i said 'i can be justified by works'.

OLAADEGBU:
If you must understand the point Jesus was making here.  Jesus made it clear to the rich young ruler that no man is good enough to get to heaven.  The rich young ruler kept all the commandments bar one and that is not good enough because God's standard is 100%.  The one thing that kept him from this standard was love for money, which breaks the first commandment.  It is only when we put our trust in Jesus Christ just as a man will trust in the ability of a parachute to keep him from crash landing, that we would be saved when we pass through the gates of death.

Even when you trust in the ability of a parachute, you still have to do something. You must use it. The parachute will not use itself. If you don't set it off during your descent, your trust in its ability will not save you. You will crashland!

OLAADEGBU:
Was Abraham, the father of faith justified by faith or by works?

Both! his faith led him to walk in the commands of the Lord and do good works,

Joagbaje:
I understand James perspective. He made a good point. Faith is dead without work. But the truth remains. A man is only justified by faith. Not by the works .that doesnt negate the place of the works

So is it possible to be saved with faith and no works? Can "DEAD faith" save you?

Enigma:
James did not preach salvation by works.

what did James preach?

Eben 2:
Yes italo! I am born-again!!! and i have such peace and joy in my heart that the world cannot experience. By the special grace of God I have been given victory over sin and self. Since i met the Lord, i have developed that special hatred for sin. Things i used to do, i do them no more; the words i used to speak, i speak them no more; the evil and wordly things i used to think of, i think them no more. Everyone around me can see that this is indeed a new man. It is the Lord's doing and its marvelous in our eyes.

Your first five words answered the question: "are you born-again?".

But for the question: "have you sinned since you became born-again?", you have used more than 100 words and you still didn't answer the question.

So I ask again (and pls stop this your deliberate attempt to evade the question, behave like a christian that you claim to be and answer the question - a 'YES' or 'NO' will do incase you don't know any other way to answer clearly).

SINCE THE DAY YOU BECAME BORN-AGAIN, HAVE yOU COMMITTED A SIN?

@proo212, I find it hard answering many queries @d same time and that was exactly what your last post contained. We have to deal ith issues one by one. Now I would like you to pls state your position clearly:

Are you saying Peter was not the first Pope, or that he was but he was a bad Pope. Or are you saying that he was the head of the early church but was not called Pope. I don't even know what your religious conviction is. Eg are you one of those who say 'if its not in the Bible, it shouldn't be believed or practised?

What exactly is your position? So that I can determine the area of your post to pay the most attention to.

'Faith' is a noun. So 'KEEP the commandments' cannot be mere faith. 'SELL all you have and GIVE the money to the poor cannot be mere faith. "COME and FOLLOW me" cannot be mere faith. These capitalized words are all verbs and more importantly, they are all works. It doesn't matter how you guys try to change the name, a spade should be called a spade, not a spear.

You cannot be saved if you only have faith in Jesus and don't do good works.

Or maybe I should pose the same question to you guys and see your response:

Aletheia and 5solas, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

We don't care about dutch scientists. Tell us about the sour wine Jesus drank on the cross!

No! According to the discourse, he hadn't "sold everything he had and given the money to the poor".

That is a WORK!

Isn't it?

Why don't you just admit the truth?

@eben 2, may kelly & plappville: are you guys born again?

If your answer is yes, are you then saying that since you became born again, you have not sinned?

proo212:
@Italo You have agreed that Peter was the first Pope. Excellent. Remember the apostles commission in preaching to the Jews and gentiles. Paul's commission was to the gentiles and Peter's was to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8. If Peter was the first pope he obviously did not keep his commission because he would have had to be in Rome as the location of the papacy True or false. You can argue that there were a lot of Jews in Rome at the time so he was sent to those Jews there.

Here we have one statement from Apostle Paul in that regard. Paul wanted to establish a church where Christ had not been preached because he did not want to build on another man's foundation.

Romans 15:20 20Thus my ambition has been to preach the Gospel, not where Christ's name has already been known, lest I build on another man's foundation (AMP).
Roemer 15:20 20 [m]Dabei war es mein großes Anliegen, nur dort zu predigen, wo man noch nichts von Jesus Christus gehört hatte. Denn ich wollte nicht auf einem Fundament aufbauen, das jemand anders gelegt hatte.(Hoffnung fuer Alle)

As usual I give you in 2 languages so even i myself get a good understanding of it. If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome. Also we know in the book of Acts 28 that Paul was imprisoned then he was there for 2 years. If Paul and Peter recognised themselves as apostles why would Peter allow Paul to be in prison since he was Pope.

The book of 2nd Timothy is written from the roman prison round about 66-67 AD. In chapter 4 when was being tried, Paul mentioned that no one came to his defence that only Luke was with him. Surely Peter cannot be Pope and allow Paul to be in prison for spreading the gospel. Mind you the book of second Peter was written in 67 A.D so we are assuming he was actively Pope at the time.

Just so you know

Paul's commission was to the gentiles and Peter's to the Jews, not in the sense that Peter was not allowed to preach to Gentiles or Paul to Jews. Was it not the Lord that told Peter to preach to Gentiles? Please read Acts 10. Secondly, the Papacy has very little to do wit location and it was not the Church that made Peter the first Pope, it was Jesus - Read Matt. 16: 18,19; Luke 22:31,32; John 21:15-17 etc. It so happened that Peter died as the Bishop of Rome and that's why Rome became the centre of the Church and the Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope till this day. But there have been times in history when the Pope has been forced away from Rome for some reason or the other e.g persecution, it still didn't stop him from being tho Pope.

1 Peter 5:13 - Even though this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during those days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome. Paul desired to visit Rome (Rom 1: 10-15) and planned to fulfill that desire (Rom 15: 22,23). He had all along been hindered from visiting Rome by having to preach in places where the Gospel had not been preached but could finally visit because there was no where left to preach in the area he was (Rom 15:23).

I don't know who you think the Pope is. The Pope is the shepherd of God's people on earth. He's not a military general that you would expect to go defeat the Roman army and free Paul. The fact that Peter established the Church in Rome doesn't necessarily mean he was in Rome at the time and even if he was, the church in Rome was going through one of the worst persecutions in its history by one of the most brutal emperors that ever lived - Nero. What do you expect Peter should have done?

I sincerely hope you have had a lot to learn from in my post. I had to take my time because you raised some important and intelligent issues.

@proo212, sorry I didn't get to see your post earlier. Plappville just fills the whole place with junk, making life difficult if your trying to make a reasonable argument.

My answer coming very soon.

plappville:
Everything in the bible already existed before the existance of the catholic, that it compiled the bible does not mean the bible is catholic.

u said the "catholic is the bible", u ve forgotten that the bible has both OT and NT.

Are u now saying tht Catholic is older than the OT book? why not be specific?.
If u had said the church canonized the bible, i will hear u, don't say, the catholic church is the bible,
The bible is Gods word, God is not Catholic or CGM, or RCCG, but i we can say that these churches are for God.
because He dwells therein. Anyone of Gods church that got polluted, ve not his presence.

sometimes i dont know what your problem is. but dont tell me its bad eyesight. where did i say that "catholic is the bible"? Pls quote me.

i said the Catholic church compiled the bible and you agree. you even added that they canonized the bible which very true.

Now, do you know what that word "canonize" means? It means: to declare something holy and sacred by ecclesiastical authority.

So in essence, what you are saying is that The Catholic Church compiled the Bible (picked the books that they felt were divinely inspired and discarded the ones they felt were not divinely inspired), named it "the Bible" and declared it as the Holy and inerrant word of God. And it was accepted because they had the authority to do that.

Right?