But that's not what you have been spread. You add your own condition to be saved by claiming you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.
Your preaching is half truth.
Is Organized Religion Anti-Christ?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
But that's not what you have been spread. You add your own condition to be saved by claiming you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.
Your preaching is half truth.
I never said that. However, the Bible teaches a trinity, 1 John 5:7.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Robert,
Do you believe the Reformation was just one set of organized sects resisting one big organized sect (Rome)? Were men like Wycliffe, Knox, Huss, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin (...ouch...) etc... simply trying to enforce the dictates of one variation of organized religion?
Salvation is by grace but justification is based on what we say and do.
So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12 NKJV)
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:58 NKJV)
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. (Matthew 16:27 NKJV)
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:58 NKJV)
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. (Matthew 16:27 NKJV)
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encycopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encycopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
That's your twisted reading of Jesus' word.
The Catholic church had a strangle hold on the people and they were squeezing them for all that it was worth.
You had to pay for everything.
The Gospel says we are justified by faith. Not by the Catholic church.
They simply got sick of the graft.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
It seems interesting to me that the one Reformer who is probably most known for his attack on indulgences (Luther) was also the least willing to leave the organized church he was in. And he was also the most reknowned preacher of Justification by Faith alone at the time. Calling organized sects (or denominations) anti-Christ is painting with an unnecessarily - and dangerously - broad brush.
No, Luther had it right.
Anything that opposses the Gospel and justification by faith is anti-Christ.
We are justified by faith alone, because we are justified by Christ alone, Romans 3:26.
Repeating the perverted or out of context reasoning does not make it right.
Throw your Catholic encyclopedia in the trash.
Some scriptures are just so plain that a small child can understand them, 1 John 5:7 is one of them.
It you can't believe that one, I doubt if you will believe any of them.
Christians are Jesus' followers, right?
Where do you find Jesus says even once that "faith alone saves"?
You loose!
Luke 7:50 New King James Version (NKJV)
50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
Cruciform
New member
Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since we have never claimed that we are justified by the Catholic Church. Get your facts straight.
Of course you believe that you are justified by the Catholic church.
Canon #9
"If anyone says that a sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema".
If it isn't by faith alone, then its by the Catholic church alone.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is something like this for the Romanist:
http://tinyurl.com/75glvdj
Which ultimately means:
View attachment 20496
Sigh.
AMR
Cruciform
New member
This is a reference to Progressive Justification, which takes place over one's entire lifetime. Regarding Initial Justification, however, the Church teaches the following in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion...
Non Sequitur Fallacy. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
All by the grace of God alone.
Straw Man Fallacy.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+