₦airaland Forum

obowunmi:
If ure going to give, give to the poor directly. Never surplus the pocked of a deluded man of God who will rather invest in a private jet than in the needs of the people.

^^ The pockets of PJPs ("[b]p[/b]rivate-[b]j[/b]et-proprietors [b]p[/b]astors" should not be an excuse for not giving in Church. A 'PJP' who pretends to 'prophesy' one way or another for your wallet to fund/sponsor his private jet is not a genuinely called minister of Christ.

However, you can give directly to the poor whenever you choose to do so (Mark 14:7) - in the form of alms (Luke 12:33) or through your local church contributions (Romans 15:26).

Giving to the poor is not the only type of giving in the Bible, and it does not negate other aspects of Christian giving for other matters or concerns.

newmi:
Pls l mean no disrespect but l have spent a good portion of my early hours reviewing your post yet am still thinking what exactly is the point or sense the person intends to get across the table.

O dear me! I don't understand why this very simply thread has generated such concern. Misunderstanding, maybe?

The OP has said that it was a parody, not a parade -

davidylan:
actually i took that from the forward to a book by a popular "man of gawd" then modified it to read like what a biography of Christ would read in our day. That was a parody my friend.

Yes, nicely put. Sometimes I sense the message in a preaching or teaching is very quickly lost and buried along the line when the 'gawds' switch over to impress us with their curriculum vitae.

Enigma:
What defines giving that is love driven is that the giver gives WITHOUT expecting anything in return whether from God or from man. However, the giver knows that God has seen his action of giving and trusts in God to reward him as God sees fit.

I don't think this is half-helping matters. Not at all.

One cannot assert that a giver gives 'WITHOUT' expecting anything in return from God, while yet contradicting that statement by saying that such a giver "trusts in God to REWARD him as God sees fit". If such a giver was to expect nothing in return, why yet does he need to TRUST God to REWARD him? Is that not expecting something in return - the REWARD? Why not rather "trust God" to reject any rewards on the basis of "love-driven"?

On the contrary, the form of giving that is 'love-driven' also includes aspects where the giver indeed expects to receive something in return. In that manner, giving is reciprocal. "Give, and it shall be given unto you" (Luke 6:38) is a fundamental axiom - and that is also 'love-driven'.

However, I think many Christians often confuse this idea 'love-driven' giving for lending on interest in Luke 6:35 (KJV) -

[list]'But love ye your enemies, and do good, and LEND, HOPING FOR NOTHING AGAIN; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.'[/list]

The word 'LEND' in that verse is 'daneizō', defined by Strong's G1155 as "to loan on interest; reflexively to borrow".

When Christ said to 'lend, hoping for nothing again', it appears He was highlighting what the Law of Moses already stipulated in Leviticus 25:35-36 about taking no usury (i.e., "interest" on loans/lending/debts among the Jews.

However, this 'lending' to hope for nothing again does not negate the believer's grace to reciprocal giving. Believers can indeed give and EXPECT to receive. Reciprocal giving is taught everywhere in both the OT and NT.

Enigma:
And for the Christian, the New Testament does not make a distinction, i.e. the false distinction often made nowadays, between "tithes" and "offering". All is giving and all may be given wherever and to whomever the giver "purposes in his heart".

Thank you for that!

I especially like the fact that "All is giving" - whether tithes and offerings. I have often said that tithing is a form of giving, and believers can express their giving in the form of tithes/tithing (garyarnold, please keep this in mind ).

Also, I have often tried to maintain that believers are free to give wherever they so choose to give - if that giving (including tithes) is done in Church.

If this is so, why do some Christians take it upon themselves to argue unnecessarily against the idea of Christians tithing in Church? 

There are Christians who tithe without having any problems doing so.
No verse in the Bible condemns anyone for tithing.
Tithing in itself as a form of giving is not condemned anywhere in the Bible.

Those who want to express their giving in the form of tithes TODAY are absolutely free to do so.

---

garyarnold:
No one, not even the farmers, tithed on their income.

No one, not even the farmers, tithed on ASSETS.

Today, ALL born-again believers are priests. ALL of us are called to be deciples of the Lord. No one of us is higher than another. Our bodies are the Temple where the Spirit dwells. According to the scriptures, priests do not tithe.

Although all Christians are priests and disciples of the Lord, the NT shows that there are those who are placed in authority as far as SERVICE is concerned. The idea that "no one of us is higher than another" is true only in the sense of salvation; but it is absolutely false in terms of SERVICE.

Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (KJV) that "God hath set some in the church, FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY prophets, THIRDLY teachers, AFTER THAT miracles, THEN gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." This quite clearly demonstrates that some in the Church are higher than others according to responsibility in service.

This is why the same Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 uses the Law of Moses as his basis for Biblical giving in support of those who preach the Gospel -

[list]Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.[/list]

In his argument in 1 Corinthians 9:13, Paul does not mention any of the types of offerings for supporting the priests. However, among the several ways in which ministers of the Temple and the Altar receive their sustenance in the OT, Numbers 18 outlines the tithes under the Levitical system. Paul draws from such passages in the Law of Moses to conclude that "In the same way" the Lord has ordained giving for ministers in the NT.

It is particularly interesting that verse 14 says this NT Christian giving should be "In the same way" (KJV) as those in the Law of Moses gave to ministers of the OT. The Amplified Bible renders it as "On the same principle". There is no verse that condemns tithing in itself anywhere in the NT, or even in the OT. If God so wanted badly to end tithing in all its forms anywhere in the NT, there definitely would have been clear condemnation of tithing in the teaching of the apostles.

Christians in the NT can draw guidelines from the OT Scriptures for practical giving today. That does not mean we therefore come under the operation of the old covenant of Judaism - no. Rather, in the same way as the apostle Paul drew largely from the Levitical system in the Law of Moses to teach about Christian giving for ministers of the Gospel, so it is in the same manner that many Christians express their giving in the form of tithes in their churches.

This is why, after all the arguments against tithing as a form of giving, many more Christians are still tithing. Anti-tithing campaigns have not inspired an increased or healthy giving in the Body of Christ - not even in the USA.

italo:
He goes on to say(verse 5) "he saved us through the bath of rebirth
and renewal by the holy Spirit," That is simply baptism. So he saved them with baptism. Baptism is a work. He saved them with a work. So without 'work', they wouldn't be saved.

Among the various significances of baptism in the NT, 1 Peter 3:21 describes it as "the answer of a good conscience toward God". Baptism is not defined in the Bible as man's 'work' which procures "justification by GRACE". The passage itself in Titus 3 says plainly that it was not because of any good works that we do that God chose to save us - rather, it was purely because of His mercy that He did so. This is how the New Jerusalem Bible (preffered by Catholics) renders verse 5 - "it was not because of any upright actions we had done ourselves; it was for no reason except his own faithful love that he saved us".

italo:
So we both agree that salvation starts at Baptism. Salvation is not a one-time thing and one can lose it. A good example could be Judas.

Unfortunately, there is no verse that shows us that Judas was saved - not even by baptism. It is obvious from Jesus' words concerning Judas that the latter most possibly was not saved: 'Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.'

That's why in verse 7, St. Paul talks about 'becoming heirs in HOPE of eternal life'. You don't hope for what is certain. You only hope for what is not certain.

I don't think so. The certainty of our hope in Christ is clearly enunciated in Scripture and this is how it is presented:

[list][li]the hope set before us is 'an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast' - Hebrews 6:18-19[/li][/list]

[list][li]it is "a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - 1 Peter 1:3[/li][/list]

Titus 3:7 says that we have been made heirs according to the hope of eternal life; but God would not make us heirs of what is "not certain". Rather, because what He has set before us is a living hope, both sure and stedfast, we can rest our hearts on God's solid promises thereto as we "hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" -Hebrews 3:6.

@italo,

Thank you for explaining what you feel is salvation by 'works' - or more accurately, salvation by 'faith + works'. However, you did not prove that doctrine from the text. Rather, you jumped to conclusions that are not warranted by those verses.

italo:
In order to understand that work is necessary for salvation, let's look at it from verse 3-7.

I think you missed the climax there, which verse 7 presents: 'That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.'

This is what I would very much like to ring constantly in your ears: 'Justified by GRACE.' That is the thrust of the Gospel in the NT - that, we are justified by grace, and not by any 'works' of our own, which expands on verse 5 that salvation is 'NOT BY WORKS'.

Further, Romans 3:24 states in very clear terms that we are being "justified freely" by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Not only are we justified by GRACE, but also justified FREELY - which again emphasizes the fact that salvation is not by our own works.

We have also seen in Romans 11:6 that grace and works are not mixed up in one lump as far as salvation is concerned.

[list][li]"if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works"[/li][/list]

It is beautiful to read how various other versions render that verse -

[list][li]"And since it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!" ~ New Jerusalem Bible (preferred by Catholics)[/li][/list]

[list][li]"And if he chose them by grace, then it is not what they have done that made them his people. If they could be made his people by what they did, his gift of grace would not really be a gift." ~ Easy-to-Read-Version, ERV[/li][/list]

[list][li]"His choice is based on his grace, not on what they have done. For if God's choice were based on what people do, then his grace would not be real grace." ~ GoodNews Bible[/li][/list]

When you seek justification by your own 'works', then what you are looking for is NOT 'grace' or God's 'gift', but rather a 'DEBT' as Romans 4:4 explains: "Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt." So, when Titus 3:5 & 7 says that people are being justified by GRACE, it is solidly made clear that such justification is not based on what people do - otherwise that would neither be called 'grace' nor a 'gift' nor even described as 'FREE'.

We are justified by GRACE - it is God's GIFT - and it is FREE.

^^ Lol, I guess you're just teasing me.

Anyhow, I tried to not be unreasonable; but there's a possibility that my manner of response "might" have come across rather harshly - which I regret. An example is post #71 where I said to italo -

There is no need for such a reaction, and it's quite a stupid remark.

^^ No problem. I also apologise unreservedly where I might have been unreasonable in our discussion.

^^ You need it more for yourself, though.

italo:
Oh! So its now "perform", initially you said "demonstrate". This is getting hilarious.

Yes, I did not leave 'perform' standing alone without a context, for I explained what I meant in the use of that word -

[list][li]"1. The Greek word 'katergazomai' (κατεργάζομαι -  to perform, accomplish, achieve) is used in Phil. 2:12 in context of putting into action (ie., perform) what has already been given to you. "[/li][/list]

This does not contradict my earlier use of the word "demonstrate" to explain the same sense in CONTEXT.

Well, if salvation is purely a gift that does not demand any form of action, then 'PERFORM YOUR SALVATION' does not make sense.

To be sure, salvation is a GIFT (Ephesians 2:8 - "it is the GIFT of God", so the question of "IF" does not arise. This gift is received by faith through the GRACE of God; and the verse is clear enough, that this is "NOT OF WORKS" (Ephesians 2:9).

Further, I have noted from Romans 11:6 that GRACE is NOT 'WORKS', and 'WORKS' is not 'GRACE'. Your problem here is trying to force 'faith' (a response of man to God's GIFT) to be re-defined as "work".

You don't 'perform' a gift, do you?

Yes, you do - if you look at the context of my use of 'perform' to mean "putting into action", which you unwittingly acknowledge in this next line -

italo:
You can demonstrate(show) your gift, but you can't perform it. So drop that.

Oh, hang on mate. So now you even acknowledge that "you can demonstrate(show) your gift", yes?

But did you not vehemently protest against my use of "demonstrate" earlier when I said in post #20 that 'To "work out" is not the same thing as to "work for" - the first (work out) is to demonstrate something that someone already has'??

I'll remember this acquiescence from you - "You can demonstrate(show) your gift" - and let's just remember, salvation is a GIFT (Ephesians 2:8 ).

And no English dictionary in the world defines 'work out' as perform.

Don't be so presumptious! The English phrasal verb 'work out' is sometimes defined to include "perform" when dealing with mathematical calculations, such as in 'perform a division'.

However, if you want to get very technical, check carefully the use in CONTEXT of 'work out' in the sense of "exercise" or "put to work". You will find it here in the 8th sense of the use of "put to work".

You can neither change the texts of the Bible nor that of the English dictionary.

Admittedly, context is foreign to you.

ADMIT THAT! Then we move to your verses. If you're trying to change this text, how are we sure you won't do the same by the time we start dissecting those verses.

I'm not trying to change the text, and have explained in context what they possibly might be pointing to.

Now, please move on to the verses I asked you to explain for the teaching that salvation is NOT OF WORKS.

Besides, if salvation begins at the new birth (which is baptism or being born again), that means salvation begins with a work and is not possible without a work. Because having faith is one thing, but being born again (accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and saviour as some would call it) is a work.

The Bible does not define the grace of faith as work.

The Roman centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, but he wasn't necessarily born again.

Was the Roman centurion saved by the greatest work in Israel?

^^ Many thanks, Pst.Rich.

---

@italo,

Rather than keep quarrelling with words, why don't you try and show us what "NOT OF WORKS" in (Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5) mean to YOU?

italo:
Then you'll understand the kind of mind we are dealing with.

Are you seeking sympathy already?

Pastor AIO:
I still need to know what you mean by 'salvation'. What does it entail for you?  What are you being saved from?

Important questions which cannot be fully answered in a one line statement. Perhaps sometime in the course of our further discussions in this thread, I'll post more detailed responses.

For now, salvation is a word used with various and diverse applications in the NT as regarding the Gospel. It begins with the new birth (being 'born again' - John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:13) and entials justification and redemption (Romans 3:23). Christian believers are saved from sin (Romans 6:18 & 22), and the system/principle described as this present evil world (Galatians 1:4) and ultimately from the wrath of God (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thes. 1:10).

That is not all that can be said about salvation in the NT, but they are foundational.

What is it that needs to be further 'worked out' once you have been saved?

Holiness (1 Peter 1:15).

I realise that this single word 'holiness' connotes a lot of things for many people; but that is the heart of all other things to be 'worked out'. The goal of whatever else is to be worked out in the life of the believer is conformity to the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29).

If it is God that worketh in the saved person to will and do his good pleasure, then why address the people.

We should be careful to note distinctions here. The question of 'IF' does not arise, for it is true that it is indeed God who works in the saved person (Phil. 2:13), as He is the One who begins the work of His good pleasure in us (Phil. 1:6) - which, of course, starts with the new birth (John 1:13).

But the call to the believer (ie., the saved person) is one of obedience that demonstrates God's work in our lives. It is the saved person that is called to obedience, and that is why the people are addressed - see also Romans 1:5 (we have received grace for obedience to the faith).

You never told us what your understanding of Matthew 25 is.  Could you please make it clear to us?

Well, as I said in that thread, Matthew 25 does not teach that salvation is procured through our works. If it were, that would be tantamount to saying that redemption is also procured by the said 'works' - what then would be the reason for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Matthew 25 shows the reward of the righteous (verse 37), in contrast to the result of the cursed (verse 41). It does not aim to teach us that the righteous are justified and redeemed by their works any more than the cursed are unjustified by their works or lack thereof.

italo:
2. The verb 'work out', when used to mean 'exercise', is an intransitive verb, and intransitive verbs cannot have an object. Other examples of intransitive verbs are: die, sleep. You can say 'the dog died' or I will sleep', but you cannot have an object added after it. That's the same way you cannot add on object to 'work out'. So its grammatically impossible to say 'work out(exercise) your salvation.

Pastor AIO:
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him DIE THE DEATH. ( Matthew 15:4 )  

I slept a deep sleep in which I dreamt a dream in which I did a deed the tale of which I cannot tell.

@Pastor AIO,
Excellent. Thank you.

@italo,

italo:
So clearly, it's either you didn't know the meaning of 'work out' or you deliberately lied just to buttress your point. Courtsey demands you apologize for either.

Before you hastily accuse me of deliberately lying, please check your use of language. I'm aware of the meaning of the Greek word 'katergazomai' (κατεργάζομαι), but it is meaningless to run with a pretext while ignoring its context. It is the use of that word in the context of Phillipians 2:12 that I have been pointing out, which again I shall delineate for you.

italo:
3. As I mentioned earlier, the word for work 'out' in the original greek text of the Bible is 'katergazo' and it means: to accomplish, achieve or produce; which is consistent with the dictionary definition I gave you.

1. The Greek word 'katergazomai' (κατεργάζομαι -  to perform, accomplish, achieve) is used in Phil. 2:12 in context of putting into action (ie., perform) what has already been given to you. It is not used to teach salvation by the works of the repentant sinner, and the next verse also makes it clear in context that "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (verse 13).

2. In his epistle to the Philippians, it would be unreasonable to assume that Paul was addressing people who had not been saved! In chapter 1, he already acknowledges that those folks had received salvation through God's grace when he addressed them in 1:1 as "all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi". Why would he address them as "saints in Christ Jesus" if they had not received salvation through the grace of God?

3. The apostles did not teach a doctrine of 'salvation by works', as it is everywhere clear in the emphasis that our salvation is 'NOT OF WORKS' (Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5). Only after salvation is received by faith as a GIFT (not as a reward) from God, then 'works' come into view.

Could you please now address (3) above? Please let me know what (Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5) mean to YOU, where those verses teach that salvation is not by works?

Rastani: 'The first thing people should do is protect their assets, protect what they have. . . because in less than twelve months, my prediction is, the savings of millions of people is gonna vanish.'

There's no doubt about savings of millions of people vanishing - I saw that coming. What astounds me is this: protect all you want to protect - anyhow you want to protect it - and the cancer will still get to your assets. The present crisis was orchestrated (of course, by the 'not-so-invisible' pipers).

italo:
No need to dribble around bros, nobody's saying salvation is of works and you know it. Quit the drama. We all know its by grace, we're just saying man has to respond with faith and works. You say works have no bearing, just faith.

If salvation is of grace (as we all know it is), what then is the need for you to keep arguing about "works" as if it is also what procures salvation? The response by faith is not the same thing as "works" - it is when man responds by faith that salvation is procured; and man does not need to respond with "works" in order to procure that salvation.

^^ To all your confusion, my answer is simple: salvation is NOT OF WORKS.

The verses I have quoted so many times still remain the same: Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5.

Now, my dear sir, I would hope that you consider those verses and please let me know what they mean to YOU.

italo:
So why does the bible tell us to 'work out our salvation'?

We've been through that before, haven't we? You seem to often call for unnecessary repetitions, but this is what I said in post #20 -

To "work out" is not the same thing as to "work for" - the first (work out) is to demonstrate something that someone already has; the second one ("work for" is to engage in something as a means to obtain something else - and it is the second one that you argue which is not taught as the basis of our salvation in Christ.

The distinction(s) between "GRACE" and "WORKS" have already been delineated and amount to the same thing we have been saying - salvation is NOT OF WORKS. As long as we keep that distinction, there really is no need for anyone to suppose that 'works' procure salvation.

Now, this is interesting -

Enigma:
That Paul in particular often makes reference to "faith" 'only' does not necessarily mean that he is contradicting Jesus. I would say it is legitimate to say that Paul expects work to follow faith automatically and so rarely dwells on "works" per se. Remember that this same Paul dwells on "fruit" and "fruit of the spirit" --- what are those but "works"?

. . . and it is just about the same thing we have said. Works follow after salvation.

It is also important to bear in mind that when Paul seems to be talking down "works", he was referring principally to "works of the law" with all the rituals (especially his much "despised" circumcision) rather than "works" in the simple sense of good (or "righteous" deeds.

No. Paul was clear when he qualified what he meant by works - it was not simply or principally the 'works of the law' (although he included that - Romans 3:20). He included ALL works, including "righteous deeds", and shows that salvation is "NOT OF WORKS". Titus 3:5 is clear enough - God saved us, "NOT BY WORKS DONE BY US IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, but according to his own mercy".

Finally talking about "righteousness" I think we should always pay close attention to the sense in which the word is used on different occasions in the scriptures. Of course doing good things is doing 'righteous' things and in that sense man can "on his own" be 'righteous'. On the other hand, in terms of the true and essential basis of worthiness before God righteousness is the righteousness of Christ imputed to man through grace.

The bold: lovely.

italo:
Just sit back and wait for the next bout of 'trash'. You'll remember I warned you.

There's no reason to grow hypertensive over this issue. Salvation is NOT OF WORKS.

italo:
Oga which one is your own true doctrine? Your own is to say Catholics did this , Catholics did dat.

I don't like repeating myself. My answer has already been given when I said: "I do not follow Catholicism, and my answer is Acts 2:42." Besides, I have also noted that the discussion is swinging away from salvation now to Catholic this and that. Can I kindly ask that we leave those aside and concentrate on the subject of salvation? Thank you in advance.

italo:
Its better to hit the nail on the head with one word than spend a million words beating around the bush.

I have done so: the Bible teaches that salvation is "NOT OF WORKS".

PastorAIO,

Pastor AIO:
So according to Jesus the right hand folks receive their inheritance BECAUSE (FOR) the good works that they've done. No be me talk am, na Jesus talk am. If you like run to Paul to find your refutation of Jesus.

I understand the use of English, thank you.

However, you have not added a shade of difference to what I have been saying. Paul does not contradict Jesus, and what Matthew 25 shows in that passage is simply the reward of the righteous. It does not aim to teach us that someone is saved 'BECAUSE' he/she fed the hungry, attended to the needy, etc., etc.

O ka re, Well done!! So how does this apply to Matt 25? What are it's implications for Matthew 25? Are you saying that Jesus was wrong?

Rather than try to read things askew and arrive at arguing for Jesus being wrong, would it be too much to consider what those verses say?

@italo,

I just wondered: have you thought carefully about what effect Jesus' death and resurrection have on YOUR SINS? I can't undertand how an informed Christian would still argue that he will still pay for his or her sins even though they were forgiven, and yet these (among others) is what Jesus has already accomplished -

wordtalk:
5.  Sins that are forgiven in Christ are -

[list][li]WASHED IN HIS BLODD - (Jesus has ALREADY 'washed us from our sins in his own blood')[/li][/list]

[list][li]TAKEN AWAY (1 John 3:5 - 'you know that he (Jesus) appeared to take away our sins)'[/li][/list]

[list][li]PURGED - (Hebrews 1:3 - Jesus has ALREADY by Himself PURGED OUR SINS)[/li][/list]

[list][li]REMEMBERED NO MORE (Hebrews 8:12 - God Himself said: 'their sins I will remember no more')[/li][/list]

[list][li]FORGIVEN - (Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 - in Jesus Christ we already have 'the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace')[/li][/list]

Please tell me: if Jesus' death and resurrection has washed, taken away, purged and forgiven your sins - so that God no longer remembers them - why do you still want to pay for your own sins by yourself? What does that say about your response to God's grace Who has done it all for you through Jesus Christ?

italo:
Also, a righteous person is not merely one who has faith but one who is morally upright, doing the will of God and avoiding sin.

Romans 3:18
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

italo:
You have used a million words but have still not answered my questions - at least reasonably.

I answered your questions, although it's only fair to say it wasn't the Catholic answer you had hoped to read.

1 Cor 3: 15 says people will be saved after undergoing punishment as through the fire, and that clearly supports the doctrine of purgatory. If you have any other explanation of that verse, let's hear it.

My dear sir, in just the same way that you argue that "faith is not mentioned at all" in that passage, so also you will not find the word 'punishment' in those verses. Just because you read such words as 'fire' in verse 15 does not automatically qualify the passge to suggest purgatory.

First, the apostle was not speaking in literal terms when he said the one whose works are burned would be saved, 'yet so as by fire'. The highlighted words ("as by" makes it obvious he was speaking metaphorically, so it should not be stretched to argue 'punishment' there as if the saved person had to pass through a place filled with fire.

Second, the force of the whole passage is that though a man's work may be entirely burned up, yet he himself shall be saved. The fact that his works are burned up and do not survive shows two things:

[list](a) that his works proved nothing in his salvation. If his salvation depended on his works, then he would not have been saved since his works were burned; yet, the man himself was saved even though his works were burned;[/list]

[list](b) that the man himself did not thereby lose his salvation by the loss of his works. 'If any man's work shall be burned . . . he himself shall be saved'.[/list]

As far as salvation is concerned, the NT teaches that it is "NOT BY WORKS".

Also, 1 Cor 3: 14,15,17 clearly shows that its everyone's work that will be judged on that day. Be you destined for a reward, salvation or destruction.

Since it is the works that will be judged, why then are you trying to judge the person?

Look sir, the "works" will not save anyone. For everyone who is saved, the testimony is the same:

       1.  It is NOT BY WORKS

       2.  It is by GRACE

       3.  Grace is NOT 'work'; and 'work' is not GRACE (Romans 11:6)

       4.  thus, if it is by grace, it is no more of works
       and if it by works, it is no more of grace (Rom. 11:6)

You cannot be mixing up the two for salvation where the Bible is crystal clear that salvation is NOT BY WORKS.

Its not mere faith that will be judged. Infact faith is not mentioned at all.

If faith is not mentioned, why then are you pressing for 'punishment' which is also not mentioned at all?

To be sure, faith is mentioned as the response on our part in salvation - and I have outlined it earlier:

1. Salvation is by GRACE.

2. The human response is by FAITH.

3. The believer's proof of his or her faith is the 'WORKS' that follow AFTER receiving salvation by faith through God's grace.

Your problem is that you agree with (1) above and yet scatter everything else by combining and confusing (2) and (3) in one lump as the basis of salvation. Your doctrine, I'm afraid, is not what we find in Scripture.

Let me lay it out once again -

(a) "by grace are ye saved through faith" - Ephesians 2:8

(b) "and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8

(c) "Not of works, lest any man should boast" - Ephesians 2:9

This discussion seems to be spiralling out of its course and on to other things. While it is not focused on Catholicism, I'll say this much and hope you find somewhere else to discuss your problems about Roman Catholicism.

italo:
So if you reject Catholicism, you should reject the bible, the trinity as well. Its sooooo simple.

That, my friend, is a fine example of argumentative fallacy. Catholicism is not the foundation of the Bible, that is why a believer can have a Biblical worldview without resorting to Catholicism.

For example, while the Bible teaches that the sins of a Christian believer are washed, purged, taken away, FORGIVEN and no more to be remembered, Catholics like you clearly do not believe what the Bible clearly teaches! That is why you still want to pay for your forgiven sins by yourself!

Another example: while the Bible teaches that salvation is NOT BY WORKS but simply by the GRACE of God through faith, Catholics like you are still struggling to look for salvation based on your own works mixed with faith and grace as side attractions.

One could give several examples to show that Catholicism actually does not square with the doctrines of the apostles - which is why a Christian with a Biblical worldview does not need (and can actually reject) Catholicism.

And I was talking about the time between 200 and 350 AD. Acts 2:42 was written long before then.

All the same, please answer the question: Where was Mariology and Mariolatry before 200AD?

Forgive Gabriel the Archangel, he was the one that first said the 'Hail Mary', and whatever an angel says is what God wants him to say.

Let me get you right: are you saying that angel Gabriel brought Mariolatry from God?

What doctrine do you follow? Let's see if its the one true doctrine the bible talks about.

I do not follow Catholicism, and my answer is Acts 2:42. This is why I try to show you the doctrine of the apostles who clearly show that salvation is "NOT BY WORKS".

italo:
On purgatory,

If you answer is NO, then why does 1Cor 3:15 talk about one being punished as through the fire and being saved (which would be purgatory)?

Already addressed.

On works,

Why then, is it that in verse 17, those who have very bad works (they destroy the body) are destroyed by God? Doesn't it show that it is mortal sin that leads to damnation, since nothing is mentioned of their faith?

All sins are still sins. The question is: are you still going to pay for those sins that God has already washed, taken away, purged, remembered no more and forgiven?

And we both know I have never said salvation is by works so pls don't bother bringing up that distraction.

You've been arguing a salvation based on works even though the Bible is clear that it is NOT BY WORKS. You can't read those clear statements and still have an argument aganst them.

italo:
Wasnt the word 'catholic' which means 'universal', added to 'the church' early on to distinguish it from the many heretical sects that kept springing up.

Added later - by who? We know what is meant by Roman Catholicism' - it is a whole system on its own, with many "additions" that even the Vatican can't find in any of the epistles in the Bible. NONE.

Is 'catholic' not merely an appelation but a description of 'the church' or was the church Paul was talking about not universal?

Oh c'mon, for goodness sake! We now that the word 'catholic' is not "merely" an appellation - it is a SYSTEM that receives its whole bull from the Vatican. End of. What is Roman Catholicism without the Vatican? What is Roman Catholicism without Mariology? You call it "merely" an appellation - but remove all the Vatican and Mariology and let's see what the appellation would benefit you as a catholic.

"How are we to find the doctrine of the apostles"? You ask. Is it wordtalk that should tell us the criteria for identifying apostolic tradition.

No, it's not wordtalk - at least I was not quoting any bull from wordtalk. I quoted the apostles in precisely what they said. You dont like it? Tough luck.

Haven't we already been handed the tradition through a proven and unbroken line of apostolic succession from the first apostles to the 2nd generation apostles to the early church fathers to the present day Catholic clergy?

If the tradition you're arguing has no foundation in the teachings of the apostles, you're on a different road altogether.

And if you dislike Catholic tradition so much, shouldn't you discard the Bible too.

No. The Bible is not bound to the Vatican or to Mariology and all its systems.

Is the Bible not a part of Catholic tradition?

We know that the apostles were not part of Roman Catholicism, so we can look into the Bible without having to be held down by the RC system.

Is there anywhere in the Bible that we find that there should be a book that will be the sole Authorized deposit of faith?

Is there any verse that said Christians are to just embrace every wind of doctrine?

Is the word 'Bible' even in the bible? Is it not unscriptural? Were the books of the Bible not enumerated and canonized by the Catholic Church in the fourth century?

Just because Catholicism may claim to have canonized the Bible does not mean that its authors were Roman Catholics. There are people who may collate codices of texts without themselves being adherents of the worldviews of the texts they collate.

How then was the early church - let's say from 200 AD to 350 AD - run?

In one word: it was NOT run on the foundation of Catholicism. Where was Mariology and Mariolatry before 200AD? Please tell me.

Wasn't it primarily through Tradition got from Apostolic succession?

No. Read Acts 2:42.

I wouldn't want to keep up with the talk about purgatory, as I said. However, I'll oblige your enquiry.

italo:
Maybe you can help me put the matter of purgatory to rest really quickly. If there's nothing like purgatory in the bible, why is it that 1 Cor 3: 15 says "But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire". Will people be punished through the fire to be saved?

My answer to the question in bold: NO.

italo:
1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as you assert, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?

Very good question. However, it misses the very point at the heart of all our discussion - that the salvation of the Christian believer is "NOT BY WORKS" (Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5).

The question you propose, however, supposes from 1 Corinthians 3:15 that works are necessary for salvation and "(not just reward)". Let's look at the two sides of this -

(a) if any man's work abides, he shall receive a reward - verse 14

(b) if a man's work is burned, he shall suffer loss - verse 15

We have already shown that salvation is a GIFT and NOT A REWARD (Ephesians 2:8 ). If a man works, then what he receives is not a 'GIFT' but a 'REWARD' - Romans 4:4.

So, what 1 Corinthians 3 deals with is simple: works and rewards, which is not the same thing as procuring salvation through GRACE. You can easily grasp this if it is illustrated this way -

            SALVATION -
            salvation is a GIFT
            salvation is by GRACE
            salvation is NOT BY WORKS

            WORKS -
            works are for REWARDS
            rewards are NOT A 'GIFT'
            work and grace are not mixed up (Romans 11:6)

italo:
Forgive me if you don't like "catholic goggles" but wasn't it the same Catholics that wrote the new testament, compiled the Bible and gave it to the world?

The reference to 'Catholic goggles' was facetious and was not made to deride Catholics. That was why I said earlier that "I'm not discrediting you for whatever you want to believe, but your thoughts are your own and not what we find in Scripture."

And doesn't that Bible say in 1 Tim 3: 15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

It does - and by 'the Church', that verse was not preaching Roman Catholicism.

And in 2 Thess. 2:15 - Does Paul not clearly command us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. Does this verse not prove that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other?

To be sure, Paul says what you are pointing out in 2 Thes. 2:15. But that does not mean we should ignore all the warnings that the same Paul gave to believers against all kinds of doctrines claiming to be apostolic.

How do we then find the doctrine of the apostles? The 'traditions' Paul spoke about should be consistent and allign with the doctrines of the NT apostles. This is why he warned that believers should not be so gullible as to be tossed to and fro with all sorts of teachngs and doctrines (Eph. 4:4); we should not be fooled into following ANY OTHER GOSPEL, even if preached by an angel or respected charismatic figure  (Galatians 1:8-9 and II Corinthians 11:3-4 & 13-14). So, if the 'traditions' you're espousing do not find a place in the teachings of the apostles, we can rest assured it could as well border on 'another gospel'.

What then is wrong with "catholic googles" if it is in line with the Church's teaching?

What is wrong with the 'goggles' of ANY church/denomination is when they proclaim their own "traditions" by special conduits that find no bearing on ANY PART OF SCRIPTURE - see Mark 7:9.

italo:
For #64

Purgatory is taught in the Bible. Its you who refuse to see it.

You see its difficult for me to spend time answering the rest of the post when you don't even know what the argument is about after almost 70 posts.

I don't see it in the Bible, it's not there - you yourself have argued with presumption on verses that do not teach such doctrines to the point where you agreed that purgatory is neither paradise nor hell nor heaven, which makes one wonder why you had inferred the purgatory doctrine from Luke 23:42-43.

Let's make things easier for you by letting this matter of purgatory rest.

I have said on at least 5 occasions that salvation is BY GRACE but the human response, FAITH & WORKS are necessary.

1. Salvation is by GRACE.

2. The human response is by FAITH.

3. The believer's proof of his or her faith is the 'WORKS' that follow AFTER receiving salvation by faith through God's grace.

Your problem is that you agree with (1) above and yet scatter everything else by combining and confusing (2) and (3) in one lump as the basis of salvation. Your doctrine, I'm afraid, is not what we find in Scripture.

Let me lay it out once again -

(a) "by grace are ye saved through faith" - Ephesians 2:8

(b) "and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8

(c) "Not of works, lest any man should boast" - Ephesians 2:9

NOW, AFTER BEING SAVED - WORKS FOLLOW:

(d) "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10)

The same thing is taught in other parts of Scripture -

(a)  GOD - "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling," 2 Timothy 1:9

(b)  He did this - "not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace," - " Tim. 1:9

(c) "which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" - 2 Tim. 1:9

And here also: Titus 3:5-7 -->>

(a) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,"

(b) "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

(c) "Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;"

(d) "That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

So then, where does "works" come into all this? It comes in AFTER RECEIVING SALVATION in verse 8 -

(e) "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly,"

(f)  "that ¹they which have believed in God ²might be careful to maintain good works"

(g)  " These things are good and profitable unto men."

In the (f) above, 1 comes before 2. You believe, you receive, you show the proof of your belief by how you live.

And you're saying 'I see you can't handle d fact dat Abraham was justified by grace and not by works.

What do you make of Romans 4:2 that shows Abraham was NOT justified by works?

Isn't it clear derz a problem smwer and its not with me?

I don't have a problem answering and laying out things in a logical and sequential manner.

italo:
Yes. I will most-likely pay for all my sins, forgiven or not. If my sins are forgiven, I will pay, through suffering, prayer, acts of charity etc.

I'm not discrediting you for whatever you want to believe, but your thoughts are your own and not what we find in Scripture. This is what we find in the Bible concerning salvation in Christ -

1.  It is not the sinner, but CHRIST Himself who died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3 - 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures')

2.  It is not the sinner but CHRIST who 'gave Himself for our sins' (Galatians 1:4)

3.  It is not the sinner, but God Himself who takes away the sins of repentant believers (Romans 11:27)

4.  In taking away sins, God freely justifies those who turn in repentance towards Him (Rom. 3:24)

5.  Sins that are forgiven in Christ are -

[list][li]WASHED IN HIS BLODD - (Jesus has ALREADY 'washed us from our sins in his own blood')[/li][/list]

[list][li]TAKEN AWAY (1 John 3:5 - 'you know that he (Jesus) appeared to take away our sins)'[/li][/list]

[list][li]PURGED - (Hebrews 1:3 - Jesus has ALREADY by Himself PURGED OUR SINS)[/li][/list]

[list][li]REMEMBERED NO MORE (Hebrews 8:12 - God Himself said: 'their sins I will remember no more')[/li][/list]

[list][li]FORGIVEN - (Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 - in Jesus Christ we already have 'the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace')[/li][/list]

6.  IF forgiven sins still have to be paid for by the sinner, it simply means you deny all the above and more for yourself.

7.  The implication of saying that you want to still pay for your own sins is found in 1 Corinthians 15:17 - "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins". The proof that your sins are forgiven is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. For Jesus was "delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:25). Therefore -

[list][li]to argue that you are still going to pay for your own sins is to say that you are STILL IN YOUR SINS[/li][/list]

[list][li]that also implies that you have no hope of the resurrection[/li][/list]

[list][li]it would also be tantamount to denying Jesus' resurrection[/li][/list]

[list][li]and to believe you still have to pay for your own sins is to prove one thing: YOUR FAITH IS IN VAIN!![/li][/list]

You have much to gain in what Jesus has ALREADY accomplished for you, brother. If you acknowledge all the above and more that Jesus Christ has done for all Christian believers, there's nothing - absolutely NOTHING - that you can do by your own efforts and good works to procure JUSTIFICATION in His redemption for you (Titus 3:5 - "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us".

Jesus' death and resurrection has saved me from eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.

More than that. Jesus' death and resurrection also does all the wonderful things I outlined for you - AND MORE. His death and resurrection also procures your REDEMPTION, FORGIVENESS OF SINS, JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, RIGHTEOUSNESS, etc., etc., etc. See just above - and read the Bible for yourself (without Catholic goggles, of course).

And I shdnt evn b answering because d answer to your questions are in your post alredi.

Eh, really? And have you considered those answers carefully?

Why are women still undergoing pains to bring forth a child?

Why does Jesus say 'we'll render account for every careless word'?

You should hav addressed that before turning around to ask further questions.

I surely would be glad to address them, but how would you benefit from my answers if you would not consider them? I noticed that after addressing some of the arguments you advanced for "faith + works", I asked you to address those verses that teach that salvation is NOT BY WORKS (post #21) - why haven't you addressed them as well?