Justification By Faith Alone

[Guest nvzbl]

Tink are you following me?? Lol. jk.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1716165' date='Dec 1 2008, 09:19 PM']Catholics feel protestants are wrong. Protestants feel Catholics are wrong. What is The Truth?
God is The Truth. That's why I believe in everything.[/quote]

That's impossible.

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1715862' date='Dec 1 2008, 02:05 PM'][indent]Faith

— Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
------------------------[/indent][/quote]

This is the narrow understanding of faith, which St James said does not justify alone, works are therefore necessary.

[Ziggamafu]

I'm still waiting for answers to post #65.

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1716060' date='Dec 1 2008, 08:27 PM']That is absolutely absurd. If I give you a box and tell you that nobody can take that box away from you (let's say that the box detects your touch and would shock anyone besides you), does that mean I am a liar when YOU throw the box away? That's like saying that a person that gives a gift did not actually give it because the recipient retained the ability to give it back. I simply cannot wrap my head around such an outlandish interpretation of such a simple statement.[/quote]

[indent]If the one holding the box has a freedom to throw it then your analogy is correct. Otherwise he cannot do it. He cannot throw it, not because he does not want to do it but because his spirit is a slave to The One who gave it. Actually, there is no total freedom, it is either you are slave of sin or slave of Christ. Ah yes, there is a time, a very short time, actually a time that is not moving, in all eternity that man has total freedom and that is ‘when he see the light and he becomes blind’ like what had happened to Apostle Paul while going to Damascus in Acts 9:1 ff. But after this ‘coming’ his spirit is now a slave of Eternal God. To tell you frankly, Apostle Paul becomes blind not because of that light (as many false teacher is saying). That light is Christ. why then it will cause Paul or Saul to become blind? Christ is the one who heals a blind to see. Is he now the cause of man’s blindness? Paul becomes blind - when this light comes because he has been in the dark from a long time. In order word, before he becomes a slave of Christ, he taught and believed with all his heart that he is in the light but actually he is still a slave of sin.


I do understand what you are saying. This is what you mean. Salvation through Christ is a matter of choice. If a man will accept it – he will be saved. And if not, then he has no hope when judgment day comes. So, processes or procedure starts by confession of sin/s, baptism (justification) and then, sanctification (faith with works –I mean everything in it like obeying moral obligation/ theology, prayer, penance…etc. etc) until the end of your life or time. This is reason why you are saying that gift (which is salvation through Christ) is like a box given to a man which he can throw it if he does not like it. And when time comes God will judge us according to our ‘deeds’ (meaning not according to our faith). As it is written in
Rev 22:12-13

12[color="#FF0000"] "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. [/color]

Hence, you are now here saying ‘justification by faith with works’. [/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]But Apostle Paul passed thru that 'test' mentioned in that passage in Revelation. He already submitted his 'faith and deeds' which is actually purely 'works' in its real essence that is why He said in 1 Cor 3:15 5 [color="#FF0000"]If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.[/color]

He explained this flames in his testimony which tested what he builds in Rom 7:14-8:4. This is what he said…
--------------
[indent][color="#FF0000"]14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.[/color] [/indent]--------------
He said [color="#FF0000"]'What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death' [/color]?
[/indent]
-----------------
[indent]I tell you and I am not imagining or lying, many are in this situation and still many will be. They will never 'burned out' but having no rest as it is written 'Heb 3:11 [color="#FF0000"]So I declared on oath in my anger , 'They shall never enter my rest.'" [/color].[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Do you 'get' what he said in that verses? If anyone get it please share it to us. [/indent]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reyb' post='1717171' date='Dec 3 2008, 01:07 AM'][indent]Do you 'get' what he said in that verses? If anyone get it please share it to us. [/indent][/quote]

Do you get what is being said in the verses you cited?

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1716060' date='Dec 1 2008, 07:27 PM']"Sola Scriptura"

Now there are two points here that I would love to read your thoughts on.

1. "Sola" - Can you please provide one, single passage that clearly states that the SCRIPTURES (that it God's WRITTEN Word) [b]ALONE[/b] are a Christian's infallible authority? Even one passage? Remember, we're looking for a scriptural proof of SOLA Scriptura. Passages that merely indicate the Scripture's profitability for teaching or passages that merely highlight the Scripture's inerrancy or divine inspiration most certainly will not suffice - we all agree on that. We're looking for just one scripture that says something to the effect that *SCRIPTURE* * *ALONE* is infallible. No specific formula of words / terms must be employed here; only that the passage CLEARLY refers to [i]a) [/i]Scripture[i] b) [/i]ALONE being [i]c)[/i] infallible

2. "Scriptura" - Can you please point out where the Bible's divinely inspired table of contents is? And by what scriptural standard I should accept that book, if there is one, which has the table of contents? Without circular reasoning? By what objective authority do you discern the Scriptures to be infallible without question begging or circular reasoning?

If Sola Scriptura falls, so too does Protestantism, which bases its protests specifically on this man-made doctrine so recently invented. Then perhaps you can examine the Catholic assertion of an infallible Church with a bit more of an open mind.[/quote]

[indent]Are you referring to me? What is a 'scripture' anyway? It is just a testimony of witnessess who see the Light of God, the Truth of God, ....etc...etc. Who is greater the one who wrote the Scripture or the Scripture iteslf?

I think, you are barking at the wrong tree. I am not a protestant.
[/indent]

Edited December 3, 2008 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1717181' date='Dec 3 2008, 01:28 AM']Do you get what is being said in the verses you cited?[/quote]

[indent]Well, sort of. I am working on it. And sorry for all typo error and wrong grammar or whatever. [/indent]

Edited December 3, 2008 by reyb

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='reyb' post='1717199' date='Dec 3 2008, 03:13 AM'][indent]Are you referring to me? What is a 'scripture' anyway? It is just a testimony of witnessess who see the Light of God, the Truth of God, ....etc...etc. Who is greater the one who wrote the Scripture or the Scripture iteslf?

I think, you are barking at the wrong tree. I am not a protestant.
[/indent][/quote]

Right; seems you are a New Age kind of person from other posts of yours. Apologies for the misidentification.

At this point then, I would like to paste in another post of mine from another thread. The intent of the post is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one and only source and standard of all religious truth; that is, Catholicism is the only absolutely true religion and Catholicism alone represents the revelation and intentions of the true God. Yes, truth is found in other religions. No, that does not make them true. Yes, God reaches people in other religions. No, that does not mean that he is okay with them staying those false religions.
[b]
STEP 1: Proving God[/b]

[u]Argument from desire as a hint:[/u]
- All innate desires correspond to a reality that satisfies those desires
- There is an innate desire for something that nothing in this world satisfies
- Therefore something beyond this world is hinted at to satisfy this innate desire

o We argued against the objection that there is worldly satisfaction for all desires by highlighting Man’s ambivalence and unquenchable “thirst” throughout history. Moreover, man’s nearly universal belief in some form of God-concept throughout history, as well as the early exercise in “God-play” amongst children (e.g., the imaginary friend) supports such an innate desire.

[u]Argument from conscience as a pointer:[/u]
- An absolutely binding moral rule points to a Divine law-giver as its source
- An absolutely binding moral rule exists in / as the conscience
- Therefore, the human conscience points to a Divine law-giver as its source

o Everyone has a conscience and feels guilty when violating it.
o Society and instinct fail to account for the obligatory nature of conscience, as we commonly violate the pressures of both in favor of obedience to our consciences.

[u]Proof from time, cause and change:[/u]
- The universe cannot be infinitely old, but instead must have been deliberately created by an eternal consciousness for the following reasons:

o Since all physical things of space/time have the real possibility of nonbeing, given an infinite amount of time, the collection of all things (that is to say, the universe) would have realized the possibility of total nonbeing (irrevocable annihilation); but the universe exists, so it cannot be infinitely old.
o All effects have a cause; but the process from cause to effect takes time, like one domino hitting another. If we wait for a particular domino to fall but the series of dominos behind it (that is, the series of causes & effects) is everlasting (that is, an infinitely old universe) then it would take forever for that domino to fall. In other words, the present effect, the state of the universe at this moment flows from a series of causes that stretch back to…what, exactly? If the series of causes is endless – if the universe stretches back in time forever – then it would take forever to reach the present effect, the universe as it is right now.
o We refuted the proposition that an unconscious generative force of nature could be the eternal cause of time’s “beginning”, since only a free agent (that is, a consciousness) could “move” in eternity; if the eternal cause was unconscious, then it could not have the freedom to not actualize its effect; the universe would therefore be as everlasting as the cause (an infinitely old universe), which is absurd for reasons already listed.

[u]Argument against atheism:[/u]
- Critical inquiries and objective argumentation presume objective meaning/value when such analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)
- Objective meaning/value necessarily presumes an eternal, conscious Creator
- Therefore, atheism is intellectually dishonest when critical inquiry or argumentative analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)

* The honest atheist must be a radical nihilist, contradicting human nature
* Only if a Creator-God exists is any experience truly meaningful / valuable
* An empirical proof of God (according to the verifications of the physical sciences) should not be expected, since God (in his eternal form) is Spirit, and therefore imperceptible by the five physical senses. The objection that "we just don't see God" is therefore invalid. We do indeed "see" God with the powers of our minds.
* God does not serve to fill merely any particular gap in human knowledge but "The Gap" of knowledge itself; that is, the universe in its entirety and our experiences of it.



• Why not polytheism: ultimately, there must be one source and standard by which all things are created, sustained, and judged. If there are many “gods”, only one of them may have ultimate Being by nature; only one can truly be called “God” with a capital “G”.

• Why not pantheism: because the universe cannot infinitely regress in time, and saying it is “God” is the same as saying that it always was, is and will be. The universe, by definition, is the collection of matter (all “things”) within time/space; therefore it is not eternal (eternity being defined as the absence of time) nor infinite (infinity being defined as the absence of space). To posit it as “God” is therefore (at the nearest equivalent) to say events in time go backwards forever.

• Why not an impersonal, unconscious “force”: because then the universe could not help but be an infinite regress, which is impossible.

[b]
STEP TWO[/b]

[u]Jesus claimed to be God, according to the Apostles and the Early Church[/u]
If the claim is true, then ultimate meaning and value – in fact the source and standard of Truth – is found in Christ, and ultimate allegiance is due him.
Therefore, it is important to establish which is more reasonable: was Jesus God or not?

If not God, there are only four other options:

[i]1. Christ was a liar; a megalomaniacal trickster.
2. Christ really believed he was God or every New Testament author who wrote of him did; in which case one or the other or both was insane or at least very stupid.[/i]

These two objections are listed together because their answer is the same: neither the character of Christ as depicted in the New Testament or the character of his Apostles (even according to extra-biblical sources) indicate wickedness, stupidity or insanity. On the contrary, we see the exact opposite: people who lived in exclusion and died brutally horrific deaths for the sake of convictions they believed to be factually accurate. Evil people are not so selfless. Crazy people are not so considerate. Stupid people are not so compelling.

[i]3. Christ was an Eastern-style mystic or guru. He was grossly misinterpreted by his followers.[/i]

The word “grossly” here would not be capable of being stretched enough if this were true. The New Testament paints such a strikingly different picture of Christ that this objection would have us believe that the historical man behind the records was virtually the opposite of the very Jewish, very mono-theistic Jesus we see in the Bible. What’s more, it would mean that all of his Apostles (besides John, who died in exile) and many of his other followers, chose cruel execution rather than compromise their cherished “misinterpretation”. If this were true, Jesus wouldn’t have merely NOT been God – he would have been the single most astonishingly terrible, most horrifically abysmal, most clumsily idiotic teacher OF ALL TIME.
We can only judge what a person was like by the reliable documents we have; redefining Jesus as a guru is re-writing history for the sake of a presupposition.

[i]4. Final objection: Jesus was either entirely mythical or mythological elements were added onto historical identity. In other words, the biblical accounts cannot be trusted.[/i]

At last, a plausible objection. The previous three made no sense because they did not fit the historical data. But this objection argues that the data has been falsified. And this is a true possibility. But almost anything is possible; is it probable? Is this objection even reasonable? To find out, we will examine and respond to each facet of the objection.

[i]a.) Too much time passed before the documents were written to trust their accuracy.[/i]

Did enough time pass for myth to be accepted?

No.
The documents were written in the same generation that the events occurred.
Churches on the other side of the world were already well-organized by the time the documents were written.
Aramaic creeds and hymns from the original Jerusalem community of Christians are found in the documents
Any mythical element would have been contested by eye-witnesses who were still alive.

[i]b.) Late additions and edits were made[/i]

Do the changes made to the documents over the course of their evolution compromise their reliability?
No. There are only a few edits and additions in the New Testament. None of them compromise the material presented to us either in the pre-existing Pauline creeds & hymns, or in the Gospels taken as a whole. Rather, the edits merely serve to smooth out the narratives and can be safely assumed to come from the same oral testimonies that spawned the writings in the first place.

[i]c.) There are contradictions and errors in the New Testament.[/i]

There are two ways to respond to this and neither of them pose a problem to the faith:
1. “No there ain’t!”People in this camp do interpretational gymnastics in order to arrive at a possible harmonization or solution to any “alleged” problem in the texts. And they are successful. There is not one problem posed that this camp has not addressed in a plausible manner.
2. “So what if there are?”People in this camp find the prior camp’s explanations improbable. They argue that the little flaws and difficulties actually contribute to a greater reliability of the text. A diversity of testimonies, all telling the same basic story, might have oppositional or contradictory details, but this just demonstrates that the agreed upon story was not fabricated or rehearsed. In most cases, the problems are extremely minute. In the other cases, the problems are argued to be intentional, thereby conveying a deeper truth under inspiration. In no case is the Gospel itself compromised.

[i]d.) The documents contain miracles, which are maximally improbable.[/i]

How we be expected to believe in impossible events?
This is not a real objection, nor is it an honest question; it is a statement. If you believe miracles are impossible, no amount of evidence will convince you that one has occurred. But since we’ve already demonstrated the reasonability of belief in God, we should have no problem discerning his supernatural interventions, if enough evidence supports them. There have been many such interventions documented throughout history, contrary to the claims of atheists. Several of them are very credible. Of course, to the atheist, since God does not exist, miracles are impossible from square one. For the theist, all that is required is an extraordinary level of credibility and a lack of any more reasonable explanations. And this is exactly what Christians argue for in the case of the Gospel.

[i]e.) Parallels to Christ exist in other ancient myths and religions.[/i]

Isn’t it obvious that Christianity just mashed other religions together to produce a largely – if not entirely – fictional god-man?
No.
First, we already know that the Gospel goes back to the time of the original events. Not only would witnesses have objected, but nobody have a motive for joining yet another new religious cult.
Second, we have multiple accounts from multiple witnesses on the same events, all corroborating the same basic story.
Third, there is more textual evidence for the Gospels (that is, sheer volumes of ancient copies) than there is for any other person or event in ancient history.
Fourth, upon closer examination, many of the alleged parallels are in fact not as similar to the Gospels as skeptics would have us believe.
Fifth, although the “parallel” religions themselves pre-dated Christianity, our only records of parallels to the life of Christ in these religions are dated after Christianity had begun its rapid spread. In other words, it makes more sense to believe that the religions in question copied Christianity’s “recipe for success” than vice-versa.

[b]Jesus is Lord: The Only Reasonable Option[/b]

We have answered the objections. The only reasonable option left is that Jesus was and is God. It accounts for:
The existence and perseverance of the Church
The Church’s rapid growth in spite of loss sustained by members
The speed of documentary authorship and duplication
The quality of the documents circulated
The basic agreement of all documents (even false ones)
The accuracy of the documents and their attention to “little details”
The documents’ inclusion of audacious weaknesses for the sake of truth
The documents’ radical new theology
The number of witnesses contemporary to the documents
Archeological verifications of the documents
Fulfillment of prophecy in the documents
Ad-hominem attacks of contemporary objectors.
The theological brilliance of the Gospel
Impact of the Gospel: changed world, changed lives

[b]STEP 3[/b]

1. Peter is clearly portrayed as the leader of the New Testament Church, and this is corroborated by the Early Church Fathers.

2. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom, indicating a perpetual office that exists to retain the unity of the Church in the king's directly visible absence.

3. The Catholic Church indeed traces through history an unbroken line of successors to Peter.

4. The Catholic Church has BY FAR contributed MORE good to humanity (in every field!) than any other institution.

5. The Catholic Church has the most (the only?) credible miracle stories in her history.


[b]IN SUMMARY:[/b]

1. There is a God.
2. God did become Man as Jesus.
3. Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

[b]SO:[/b]

If we believe that:

a) God is Truth and Jesus is God

and

b) Loving Jesus means obeying Jesus

and

c) Jesus gave us seven sacraments in which to receive Him from One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that he founded, the universal teachings of which he promised to preserve from error

then

d) we owe it to our Lord and ourselves to be in full communion with that Church.


[b]THE GOSPEL IS THIS: [/b]

By the incarnation of God’s Eternal Word – that is, by the Conception & Life, Suffering & Death, Resurrection & Ascension of God’s only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his Eucharistic Presence – God has made a visible covenant with us; that we may mystically enter into Christ’s Body and so share in Christ’s Divine Sonship (and redemptive suffering), which enables communion with God as our own Father (1 John 3:1) & empowers us to live a life free of sin and the worldly attachments that enslave us. Christ’s bodily resurrection is likewise our guarantee that we too, being members of his Body, will one day share in that glorious bodily resurrection. What’s more, by uniting us in One Body, God has given us a heavenly Family that is constantly available for love, support, and prayer (Heb. 12:1, 22-24; Rev. 5:8; cf. James 5:16). In Christ’s Body, we are even given his Blessed Mother Mary as our own mother (John 19:27 cf. Rev 12:17). God has also given us his Spirit to live in our hearts and grace us with many spiritual gifts to help us on our journey to Heaven. Finally, this covenant makes God’s grace and forgiveness constantly, conveniently, and assuredly available so that no one should endure the eternal penalties of sin (John 3:16-18).

...

If you believe in the Gospel and want to receive the benefits of God’s covenant as described here (freedom from sin and a new life, destined for eternal Heaven), you must be baptized. Baptism, which destroys all sin and all of your sin’s spiritual consequences (Titus 3:5), is the means by which one enters God’s covenant (Col. 2:11-12) and is reborn (John 3:5) into the Body of Christ; the Family of God, the Catholic Church. St. Paul tells us, “You [are] buried with [Christ] in baptism, in which you [are] also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). “If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:11-13). After baptism, you should be confirmed and then receive the Holy Eucharist as often as possible for empowerment to stay free from sin. Remember our Lord’s words: “I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53). If you deliberately reject Christ or his Church by serious sin after baptism, you must confess to a priest in the sacrament of reconciliation to obtain forgiveness (John 20:23 cf. 2 Cor. 5:18). By receiving the sacraments and being in full communion with the Catholic Church, we receive Christ and abide in him. Therein is our salvation; our freedom.

Our Lord told his Apostles: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). He tells them, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you…Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:21-23). Indeed, Christ told his Apostles that whatever they bound or loosed on Earth was likewise accomplished in Heaven (Matt. 18:18). This authority carried over into the successors whom the Apostles ordained in a chain that stretches right down to our own day and age. Therefore, we must trust and obey the teachings of the Catholic Church, who still follows the leadership of Peter’s successor (the pope), who alone holds the keys to the kingdom (Is. 22:22 cf. Matt. 16:19). “The Church,” St. Paul writes, “is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Holy Spirit protects the interpretation, clarification, and growing understanding of God’s Word (Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition, cf. 2 Thess. 2:15) from all error (Matt. 13:31-32 cf. John 16:13).

***

There you go, Reyb. Now hurry up and get into some RCIA program near you and you should be able to enjoy the fruits of salvation by next Easter.

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1715730' date='Dec 1 2008, 07:02 AM']The funny thing about sola fide is that all Prots violate it in practice (no pun intended); they all inform you that you have to do something to be saved: [i]say a prayer[/i] that, depending on the denomination, involves a formula of various doctrines. That is a work. A good work. And without that work, no Protestant (that I know) would say you are "saved".[/quote]
[indent]I said. You are correct on your above observation regarding Protestants who defend ‘Sola Fide’ doctrine. And I am not one of them. [/indent]
[indent]Now, it is written in Rom 3:21-22[/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"][indent]21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. [/indent][/color][/indent]
[indent]
The problem with Solar Fide Protestants who used this verses is, they did not realize that this faith does not come from the will of man but rather, it is a faith that was ‘revealed’ after the ‘coming’ of that light which is not referring to your historical Jesus.

Is it not Protestants and Catholics looked at the same Jesus Christ?
Is it not Protestants and Catholics looked at this Jesus who comes in this world more or less 2000 years ago, by a virgin birth named Mary? But these Apostles, Holy Prophets and other witnesses are not referring to this historical Jesus.

And the reason I keep on asking regarding these unworthy servants in Luke 17:6:10 is because, I want you to see my point on why I will say that ‘[color="#FF0000"]we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law [/color]which is written in Romans 3:28.

Again, it is written in Luke 17:6-10

[indent][color="#FF0000"]6 He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

7 "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8 Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9 Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" NIV[/indent][/color]
Why then, they should say ‘we are unworthy servants’ ?[/indent]

Edited December 3, 2008 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1717236' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:06 AM'][/quote]
[indent][post="1717236"]Okay. It is a very long, long, long, long belief. At least we have that list.[/post][/indent]

Edited December 3, 2008 by reyb

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='reyb' post='1717253' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:04 AM'][quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1717236' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:06 AM']
[indent][post="1717236"]Okay. It is a very long, long, long, long belief. At least we have that list.[/post][/indent][/quote][/quote]

This post makes no sense to me.

***

I provide the reason for belief in God.

I then provide the reason for belief that God became Man.

I then provide the reason for belief that the God-man founded the Catholic Church.

I then provide a summary of what that Church teaches.

***

And that is all you can say in response?

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1717260' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:11 AM']This post makes no sense to me.

***

I provide the reason for belief in God.

I then provide the reason for belief that God became Man.

I then provide the reason for belief that the God-man founded the Catholic Church.

I then provide a summary of what that Church teaches.

***

And that is all you can say in response?[/quote]
[indent]Because I already know them and I already done it. But I found out that is not enough and all of them are just faith. Okay. I will post some verses.[/indent]