JFJ Forums

[/quote]


I confuse if you say you need jesus to be saved but yet at the same time do not need to know it.


The very first part of salvation is KNOWING you need  savior. if you do not Know you will never be saved.

knowing that u need a savior and knowing saviors name/moniker is two different.

knowing that jesus is messiahy/savior and believing on the name is two different things.

knowing saviors name and believing in saviors name is two different things.

paul quote, " u say that u have faith but by my works, i shew you my faith"

if one says that they have faith but then that person has no works of faith, that person is a liar. a persons faith is in the product of their works.

add:

abraham believed in god. abraham was considered righteous because he believed in gods holy spirit. jesus was that holy spirit as the third person of the trinity. "before abraham was, I AM." abraham believed in jesus, he just didnt know his name.

it is not the flesh of christ that we are called to believe in but the sp-rit of christ.  again i say to u, jesus spirit is one in being with the father.

no matter how many times you get baptised, and confess jesus with the mouth, if you dont love god above all and thy neighbor as thyself, you are not believing in christ.

this is a delicate issue that demands clarity in order to understand true gospel and not just scripture.

the pope IS NOT infallible. the poster who wrote that he is infallible only when he sits in the seat of christ 'ex cathedra', is correct.

its a shame that anti-catholics must accuse the catholic church of making this claim without explaining 'ex cathedra'. you have to ask yourself if their gospel is trustworthy.

forum: can anyone tell me what papal inerrancy is? the meaning of the term escapes me.

i know that the devil speaks with silver tongue and this looks very suspicous. it sounds like it means something important but i think it dont mean a hoot.

any pope who claims to be inerrant is a bad pope. but i dont know any popes that claim this. the only people i know who are claiming that the pope is infallible are people who would mislead u into thinking this is a church claim. u dont see any catholics arguing that the pope is infallible do u? THERE IS ONLY ONE who is inerrant and we all know who that is.

the thing that we as catholics know is that jesus himself promised the apostolic church that he would be with her til the consumation of the world. (the promise was made to the CHURCH simply because the 'comsumation' would take place long after peters death, and since the world is yet 'unconsumed' jesus is keeping his promise VIA THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH HE SET UP.

the church, having faith in that promise , and knowing full well the FALLIBILITY of men, set up the ritual of EX CATHEDRA so that we may know when a fallible man is speaking or when christ himself is speaking thru his vicar on earth.

jesus is infallible and the one and only inerrant represented by the pope.

the catholic member, and the only one with the screen name,
david

Every born again believer is Jesus' representative:

" Let the message about Christ, in all its richness, fill your lives. Teach and counsel each other with all the wisdom he gives. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father." (Colossians 3:16-17 NLT)

"... we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” ..." (2 Corinthians 5:20 NLT)

David

It is to be noted that " Papal Infallibility " is held only within Roman Catholicism. It is rejected by Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants. It was never historically the belief of the entire church. There is much historically again Papal infallibility and it is never taught in Scripture either. Papal infallibility was first proclaimed as a dogma of  the RCC at Vatican I in 1870ad. There is 2 of many examples of past Popes in the Roman See which commited formal heresy and hence refutes papal infallibiilty. 1 ) Liberius Bishop of Rome embraced Arianism. He took part of an Arian church council. And signed an Arian Creed. And In his letters written in his office as Pope affirmed Arianism. It is to be noted that he held to Arianism for a short period of time before later on embracing the Trinity. This is a case of Liberius guilty of formal heresy. 2 ) Pope Honorious  ( reigned as bishop of Rome from 625ad to 638ad ) . He promoted and taught the heresy of monotheletism which taught Jesus had only one will instead of the Biblical position of Jesus having a human will and a divine will in one person. He was condemned by the sixth ecumentical church council by name and in his office as Pope for formal heresy. He was later condemned by Pope Leo II as well for formal heresy in his office as Pope. Several fact stand out. 1 . The 6th excumentical council condemned him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his offical capacity as pope and not a private theologian. 2 . He was condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.  3. He was condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teaching in his offical capacity as pope which affected the whole church.

Roman Catholic generally accuse any who disagree with their theology as being " anticatholic " . And uses that as a means of slander generally speaking. Informed Protestants , Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics do usually properly represent what the doctrine of " Papal infallibility " teaches and have done sound refutations of it. It would be fair to say the doctrine of Papal infallibility is " anticatholic " since it was never held or believed by the entire church. It is a doctrine held only within the RCC. What is rejected is Roman Catholicism and not the catholic faith itself at all. As for the gospel message of the RCC based on the Council of Trent is really a modified form of Semi-Pelagianism. And it was there that the RCC offically rejected the true Gospel of the grace of God.

with most respect and all kindness i must say that you cant read.
  catholics do not claim this AND NEITHER DES THE CHURCH THE BASHERS, WHO YOU APPARENTLY PLACE YOUR TRUST, CLAIM THIS. IT A LIE!!!!  CATHOLICS DO NOT CLAIM. WE ARE AT UNIT WITH EASTERN. IT IS THE OTHER LEG OF THE GREAT IMAGE OF NEBUCHANEZER

I say it is you who does not know how to read. And you failed to address the points I made which refutes the Roman Church doctrine of Papal infallibility. You have no idea who I am or what I have studied. All you did was make assumptions.




Roman Catholics do hold to the doctrine of Papal infallibility as I said before. The doctrine  of Papal infallibility was first made an offical doctrine of the Roman Church in 1870ad at Vatican I. That consisted only of those in communion with the  Bishop of Rome / The Pope. I deny that the Pope is the head of the entire visible church on the earth. I deny that he is infallible when he speaks from the " seat of Peter ". I deny that he has authority over me.  I am not a " basher " as you said that. That is slander and is without foundation. Just because I disagree with the specific doctrine of Roman Catholicism does not mean I am a basher. By your standards , I can call you a basher of who those who are not Roman Catholic.  The word  " catholic " never meant only Roman Catholicism as it tries to hijack that word for itself. The word catholic refers to all believers throughout the word who has embraced the gospel. The RCC itself claims to be the only true holy catholic church and that all others are not valid local visible churches and lacks apostolic succession. In short, the RCC rejects Protestants churches as being valid.  It appears the RCC is the one guilty of being a basher with it's false claims.




That is false. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox split in the " great schism " in 1054ad. Eastern Orthodox denies the claims of the RCC regarding the Pope as being head of the visible church on the earth and papal infallibility. I take it church history is not your area of study.