Bowing to Mary is a Sin!

Originally posted by Darfius
Well, that's your interpretation, but the point is, He says in a lot in the Gospel that ONLY faith in Him can save man. What is your take on this? Contradiction or are you wrong about your INTERPRETATION?

And how does He tell you to show your faith, Darfius? Not by praying like the Pharisees but by treating your fellow man with love and compassion. Not by haranguing people with your beliefs, but by the simple acts of kindness towards others that people do every day! It kills you that Jesus is inclusive and asks only that when you want some arbitrary criteria that will exclude almost everyone so you can feel better about yourself. You know 99% of the world rejects the beliefs of your Fundamentalist cult and you have to have them suffer for it, don't you Darfius? Pitiful, little man that you are; your beliefs are not those that Jesus taught and you are no Christian.

Originally posted by Darfius
Well, that's your interpretation, but the point is, He says in a lot in the Gospel that ONLY faith in Him can save man. What is your take on this? Contradiction or are you wrong about your INTERPRETATION?

Only an idiot would say a direct quote is an interpretation ,,or a flat out DECEIVER.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And how does He tell you to show your faith, Darfius? Not by praying like the Pharisees but by treating your fellow man with love and compassion. Not by haranguing people with your beliefs, but by the simple acts of kindness towards others that people do every day! It kills you that Jesus is inclusive and asks only that when you want some arbitra ...[text shortened]... little man that you are; your beliefs are not those that Jesus taught and you are no Christian.

99%? There are around half a billion Protestants, and most of those are born-again, Bible based Christians, and some Catholics are as well.

If I wanted you to suffer, I would just shutup, wouldn't I?

Originally posted by Darfius
99%? There are around half a billion Protestants, and most of those are born-again, Bible based Christians, and some Catholics are as well.

If I wanted you to suffer, I would just shutup, wouldn't I?

Most Protestants are certainly not in evangelical, Fundamentalist cults with radical interpretations like yours and very few Catholics have beliefs anything like yours. But I'll be extremely generous and say there are 250 million people who are sufficiently close to your faith for you to consider them "saved", that would still exclude something like 95% of the present world population! And the numbers in prior generations would be even smaller. Do you really believe that Jesus came to Earth to save only a tiny fraction of mankind?

EDIT: Shut up if you want; I am merely trying to show you that your beliefs are incompatible with the message that Jesus put forth in the Gospels. Some day you might thank me.

EDIT: The world population is 6.4 billion http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html so even being generous with the figures as I was, 96% of the human race presently living is doomed to eternal damnation according to your beliefs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Most Protestants are certainly not in evangelical, Fundamentalist cults with radical interpretations like yours and very few Catholics have beliefs anything like yours. But I'll be extremely generous and say there are 250 million people who are sufficiently close to your faith for you to consider them "saved", that would still exclude somethi ...[text shortened]... incompatible with the message that Jesus put forth in the Gospels. Some day you might thank me.

Numbers wise past generations were smaller but percentage wise they were exponentially higher.

I believe Jesus came to save us all, but few (as my Lord Jesus Himself said) will enter the "narrow gate". You can choose at any time to put the inerrant Word of God above your pride and above scoffing skeptics, no1. Your choice is your own and respected by God for eternity.

Originally posted by Darfius
Numbers wise past generations were smaller but percentage wise they were exponentially higher.

I believe Jesus came to save us all, but few (as my Lord Jesus Himself said) will enter the "narrow gate". You can choose at any time to put the inerrant Word of God above your pride and above scoffing skeptics, no1. Your choice is your own and respected by God for eternity.

As I thought; you wish to believe that you are part of a tiny fraction of mankind that will be saved. That is what you need to believe to think yourself superior to most of the human race. Jesus in Matthew 25 made it clear what you should believe if you want to call yourself a Christian, but you reject His basic teachings.That is your call.

Originally posted by pcaspian
no1, there are too many scriptures that state the opposite to believe that salvation is a result of your good deeds.

I've just copied and pasted, but it should give you a good background.

pc



http://dianedew.com/salvatn.htm
...[text shortened]... e are fallen from grace."

Ephesians 2:5, 8, 9; Titus 2:11; 3:5

Now, I grew up as a sola fide (faith alone) Lutheran, and the following pretty much summed it up:

Ephesians 2:8/9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

By grace, through faith. And faith also a gift? As I have before, I stress that faith, pistis, is not what one thinks, or opines to be true—faith is confidence or trust, even if there is doubt. (Confusion seems to arise because of the word “belief,” which has changed in meaning over time.)

Your list of the relevant Pauline passages is certainly extensive, if not exhaustive. I would just like to add the following, which at least “qualify” a sola fide position—

In Galatians 5:6, Paul brings faith, work and love together in one phrase:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. (pistis di agapes energoumene)

The Letter of James, however, stresses the need for works, and asks “Can faith save you?” (Luther called this book the “Epistle of Straw” and proposed removing it from the NT canon, because of its works-emphasis, which he thought was in direct conflict with Paul.)

James 2:13-26

13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-- and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Clearly, the relationship between faith and works was an issue in the early church (otherwise, James and Paul would not have felt the need to deal with it). Just as clearly, it still is.

Originally posted by vistesd
Now, I grew up as a sola fide (faith alone) Lutheran, and the following pretty much summed it up:

Ephesians 2:8/9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

[b]By grace, through faith. And faith also a gift? As I have before, I ...[text shortened]... , James and Paul would not have felt the need to deal with it). Just as clearly, it still is.
[/b]

no1 posted what Christ said. what greater authority does darfius need than christs own words?

Originally posted by frogstomp
no1 posted what Christ said. what greater authority does darfius need than christs own words?

I think no.1’s approach (not to put words in his mouth) is that, if there seems to be any conflict, Jesus’ words in the gospels “trumps” anything said by Paul, or anyone else. I didn’t go back through the whole thread, but this discussion might have begun with Darfius’ question: “I'm sorry, I must have missed it, where does Jesus say our good works get us into Heaven?”

No.1 used, in part, Matthew 25 to answer that question. (This works/faith discussion is running on at least two threads, and it can get confusing which texts are cited where.) However, from the following statements (and others like them), it appears that no.1’s opponents (1) do not buy that Jesus’ words outweigh other statements in the Bible, (2) say that the whole Bible is in some sense Jesus’ words anyway, and/or (3) there is no place where it says that works are necessary for salvation, or any hint that faith alone might not do it—

RBHILL: If you follow Jesus, you have to follow the Whole Bible not just Jesus words.

Pcaspian: We tend not to consider certain accounts of Jesus as less valid if not spoken directly by Him. (pcaspian’s exhaustive list of faith/grace statements was almost entirely Pauline.)

Darfius (same issue, another thread): You're confused about who Jesus was talking to. Since God is the author of ALL of the Bible, I follow ALL of it.

On the same thread as that, Acts29 wrote: “All scripture is God breathed. Jesus is God. I hope that answers your "question"”

Darfius: I'm sorry, where does it say exactly that good works earns salvation? Until you cite that passage, I'll have to go with where my Lord Jesus CLEARLY said only faith gives you that.

Now, a strict fideist might argue, in the face of all that Pauline doctrine, that James is just a drop in the bucket. But James at least addresses the faith/works question square-on, and so, I think, tightens the focus--especially 2:14 ( 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? ) and 2:24 ( 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.).

Originally posted by vistesd
I think no.1’s approach (not to put words in his mouth) is that, if there seems to be any conflict, Jesus’ words in the gospels “trumps” anything said by Paul, or anyone else. I didn’t go back through the whole thread, but this discussion ...[text shortened]... hat a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.).
[/b]

I think you've summarized the arguments from the other side well. I would only re-post my central point:

When considering the validity of doctrine the statements of the Principle (Jesus) must be preferred to the statements of his (mostly self-professed) Agents. Therefore, Jesus' statements are the only authoritative ones in the Bible for a "Christian" i.e. a follower of Christ's teaching.

This is a restatement of basic principles of legal analysis regarding the interpretion of contracts and other documents. There is also a statement very similar in analysis in the Federalist Papers justifying judical review of a constitution. I'll see if I can find that quote.

I also find the logical result of Darfius and RBHILL's "analysis" i.e. that the vast majority of men who ever lived are doomed to eternal damnation no matter how much love and compassion they showed their fellow man to be repugnant to Jesus' core teachings and to the SPECIFIC words of Jesus in Matthew 25.

EDIT: I think this is what I had in mind in Federalist 78:

The prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you've summarized the arguments from the other side well. I would only re-post my central point:

When considering the validity of doctrine the statements of the Principle (Jesus) must be preferred to the statements of his (mostly self-professed) Agents. Therefore, Jesus' statements are the only authoritative ones in the Bib ...[text shortened]... ght to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

I think you have understood my post clearly.

The prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

That sounds almost like a Talmudic rule for exegesis. I'm going to add it to my "tool-kit," which is only in developing stages (which is why, at this point, I am more interested in hermeneutical questions than absolute answers).

Thanks.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you've summarized the arguments from the other side well. I would only re-post my central point:

When considering the validity of doctrine the statements of the Principle (Jesus) must be preferred to the statements of his (mostly self-professed) Agents. Therefore, Jesus' statements are the only authoritative ones in the Bib ...[text shortened]... ght to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

Jesus also said "the Father and I are one". God authored the entire Bible.

So which of my Lord's teachings should I ignore, no1?

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you have understood my post clearly.

[b]The prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

That sounds almost like a Talmudic rule for exegesis. I'm going to add it to my "tool-kit," which is only in developing stages (which is why, at this point, I am more interested in hermeneutical questions than absolute answers).

Thanks.
[/b]

That's Alexander Hamilton's (unlike our Fundamentalist cult brethren I'm sure you would want to give proper credit to the author).

Originally posted by Darfius
Jesus also said "the Father and I are one". God authored the entire Bible.

So which of my Lord's teachings should I ignore, no1?

Where does Jesus say in the Gospels that God authored the entire Bible which, of course, did not exist when Jesus lived (assuming He did)? You need not ignore Jesus' teaching that God authored the Bible since He never taught it; as far as the teachings of your "Lord" you are free to believe what you will but if you insist on not following Jesus' teachings I fail to see how or why you would call yourself a Christian.

EDIT: I am willing to assume for the purposes of this argument that a real Jesus actually lived and that His words are accurately transcribed in the Gospels.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you have understood my post clearly.

[b]The prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.

That sounds almost like a Talmudic rule for exegesis. I'm going to add it to my "tool-kit," which is only in developing stages (which is why, at this point, I am more interested in hermeneutical questions than absolute answers).

Thanks.
[/b]

Have another site you might like to look at

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\semet&first=1