Ask Me Help Desk - Who are the evil ones who say Lord, Lord?

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

You evaded the question. I'll post it again.

Nope. I did not evade it. This is not the first time that it was asked. You're getting to be like Akoue, asking the same question over and over after it has been asked.

Quote:

For those who depend upon anything by the work of the cross for their salvation, they will be judged by their works. One sin and they have condemned themselves because they placed their hope in works.
Since that isn't Catholic doctrine, we don't need to worry.

No, it's Christian doctrine.

Quote:

Now, how about those who profess to be faithful but don't do the works which God prepared from the beginning?

One more time - this time, please read. Professing to be faithful does not save anyone. Receiving Jesus as Saviour is what saves.

Further, your question is in and of itself contradictory because one cannot be faithful and not do good works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

We don't want your prescription. God is our Judge.

Not mine, God's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

my responsibility to search those hundreds of posts? .

I've provided post #'s to you on a number of occasions when you've requested them. Please return the courtesy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Nope. I did not evade it. This is not the first time that it was asked. You're getting to be like Akoue, asking the same question over and over after it has been asked.

Yes, up until such time as it is answered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Not mine, God's.

And you are, perhaps, the pharmacist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

How, when you can't even explain to me my error regarding Eph.2.8-9. (Notice I'm not asking you to explain my errors regarding Tituas 3.5., Jn. 3.5., James 2.4-5, etc. I'll set those undischarged promissory notes of yours to one side until you answer the question I've been asking since #13--and which I asked you also on the other thread a couple of weeks ago. You didn't answer it there either.)

Just like my children. I guess that you figure that if you can be an annoyance that you win the argument. Doesn't work because I do not consider myself in an argument. I seek truth from God's word, and submit myself to His word. You may be arguing, and you may think that repeating the same question after it has been asked is a neat trick, but it does not matter - it just reminds me of tactics used by young children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

And you are, perhaps, the pharmacist?

I am a student of the word of God, and a servant of God saved through the cross of Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Just like my children. I guess that you figure that if you can be an annoyance that you win the argument. Doesn't work because I do not consider myself in an argument. I seek truth from God's word, and submit myself to His word. You may be arguing, and you may think that repeating the same question after it has been asked is a neat trick, but it does not matter - it just reminds me of tactics used by young children.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Where is the explanation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I've provided post #'s to you on a number of occasions when you've requested them. Please return the courtesy.

Only one that was requested or required. Only one that was legitimately missed. I do not keep asking for new ones on an on-going basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I am a student of the word of God, and a servant of God saved through the cross of Christ.

Not every student passes the class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Where is the explanation?

Not convincing. Maybe if it was posted once or twice, maybe that was missing it, but not after all the discussion regarding it that we had. Especially not since you responded.

I'm not buying your games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Not every student passes the class.

True.

Are you saved?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Only one that was requested or required. Only one that was legitimately missed. I do not keep asking for new ones on an on-going basis.

But you do keep quoting Eph.2.8-9 without acknowleding that your reading of it has been challenged. Either explain my error or concede your mistake and stop appealing to Eph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

But you do keep quoting Eph.2.8-9 without acknowleding that your reading of it has been challenged. Either explain my error or concede your mistake and stop appealing to Eph.

Your unwillingness to read does not obligate me to stop using scripture no matter how much you may dislike that passage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Not convincing. maybe if it was posted once or twice, maybe that was missing it, but not after all the discussion regarding it that we had. Especially not since you responded.

I'm not buying your games.

Then it should be easy to find. I've already confessed to you that I cannot. Please direct me to it or provide it anew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

True.

Are you saved?

That is reserved to God's judgment. I don't usurp God's authority.

Notice I am answering all your questions. Please answer mine: What is the # of the post. You say there are many, kindly point me to the one that you think would be most useful in exposing my error regarding Eph.2.8-9.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Your unwillingness to read does not obligate me to stop using scripture no matter how much you may dislike that passage.

I must be willing to read. I am reading and responding to your posts. In my response I just now made reference to something you said in your post, so I must have read it.

I like the passage fine. It provides ample evidence of your error. Why are you fleeing it? Please, the post #.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

That is reserved to God's judgment. I don't usurp God's authority.

The Biblical gospel comes in much assurance:

Heb 10:19-23
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
NKJV

I know that I am saved as did the Apostle Paul. You too can have that assurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I must be willing to read. I am reading and responding to your posts. In my response I just now made reference to something you said in your post, so I must have read it.

You read and responded, and now you resort to harassment until I do your bidding.

Is that one of your god's good works?

We discussed that, and obviously we did not agree, so why not ,move on with the discussion? If you don't like that passage, that is your issue. Are you going to resort to harassment every time that I dare post a verse which offends your belief system? Is that mature?

De Maria,
Yes I do not want Tj3's prescription either.
God is also my judge.
Whether Tj believes it or not God is his judge also though he has judged himself to be saved already.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

The Biblical gospel comes in much assurance:

Heb 10:19-23
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
NKJV

I know that I am saved as did the Apostle Paul. You too can have that assurance.

Fine, then you should be able to explain how I've misunderstood the passages to which I've appealed. Perhaps you could start with Eph.2.8-9. It's a simple request. I'm not asking you to build a bridge or define pi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Fine, then you should be able to explain how I've misunderstood the passages to which I've appealed. Perhaps you could start with Eph.2.8-9. It's a simple request. I'm not asking you to build a bridge or define pi.

Why don't you just carry on with the discussion and see where it leads? That was part of the discussion, we discussed, you asked many things, and I answered them all hundreds of posts ago. Move on. Or go search yourself. Or have you just decided to carryon with this silliness until the thread dies?

Akoue,
You keep asking nicely and keep getting ignored.
I wonder why.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Nope. I did not evade it.

Good, you've just confirmed Catholic doctrine:

Lets review:

Quote:

Quote:
Those who put their faith solely in the cross of Christ will be judge by their works to determine what crowns they will receive, crowns that we will later throw at the feet of Him who alone merits credit even for our good works.

That's Catholic doctrine.

Now, how about those who profess to be faithful but don't do the works which God prepared from the beginning?

Quote:

This is not the first time that it was asked. You're getting to be like Akoue, asking the same question over and over after it has been asked.

No, it's Christian doctrine.

One more time - this time, please read. Professing to be faithful does not save anyone. Receiving Jesus as Saviour is what saves.

Further, your question is in and of itself contradictory because one cannot be faithful and not do good works.

I rest my case. You have confirmed Catholic doctrine that faith must be accompanied by works or it will not merit salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Why don't you just carry on with the discussion and see where it leads? That was part of the discussion, we discussed, you asked many things, and I answered them all hundreds of posts ago. Move on. Or go search yourself. Or have you just decided to carryon with this silliness until the thread dies?

It's silly of me to want to understand Scripture correctly? If I am in error regarding Eph.2.8-9 then that is a serious thing. Please, set me straight so that I can be unburdened of my erroneous private interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Good, you've just confirmed Catholic doctrine:

I know Catholic doctrine very well. I dsiagree with is. I believe in and follow Christian doctrine.

Quote:

I rest my case. You have confirmed Catholic doctrine that faith must be accompanied by works or it will not merit salvation.

I said nothing of the sort. I stated that a person who simply claims to be faithful, but has not received Jesus as Saviour is not saved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Fine, then you should be able to explain how I've misunderstood the passages to which I've appealed. Perhaps you could start with Eph.2.8-9. It's a simple request. I'm not asking you to build a bridge or define pi.

I can define Pi! I can do the birdge thing too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Okay. I trust in the cross. You trust in your denomination. Let me know how that works out for you.

But, you’ve taken Him down off His Cross, walked over the “fulness of Him who is filled all in all”! What works for me is “all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the church.” Not an empty cross.

JoeT

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

But, you’ve taken Him down off His Cross, walked over the “fulness of Him who is filled all in all”!

He is down off the cross, not still up on a crucifix. He is the resurrected Saviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I can define Pi!!

Ssh! No cheating. And remember, if you allow another student to copy off your work, you're going to the principal's office too.

So you can define pi. To how many places, smart guy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I know Catholic doctrine very well.

Then why do you misrepresent it? If you know Catholic doctrine, then you know we believe in faith and works. But you claim we believe only in works? So, what's the deal?

Quote:

I dsiagree with is. I believe in and follow Christian doctrine.

You actually follow TJ doctrine.

Quote:

I said nothing of the sort. I stated that a person who simply claims to be faithful, but has not received Jesus as Saviour is not saved.

I'll quote exactly:

I asked:

Quote:

Now, how about those who profess to be faithful but don't do the works which God prepared from the beginning?

You answered:

Quote:

No, it's Christian doctrine.

I rest my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by de maria

then why do you misrepresent it? If you know catholic doctrine, then you know we believe in faith and works. But you claim we believe only in works? So, whats the deal?

You actually follow tj doctrine.

I'll quote exactly:

I asked:

You answered:

I rest my case.

Qed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Then why do you misrepresent it? If you know Catholic doctrine, then you know we believe in faith and works. But you claim we believe only in works? So, what's the deal?

I never said that you believe only in works. If you claim that to be true, show me the quote. But having rejected the sufficiency of Christ, and substituting even part of the merits of salvation with the works of men is an issue no matter hwat percentage it may be.

Quote:

You actually follow TJ doctrine.

And Paul followed Pauline doctrine. If you associate my beliefs so closely with scripture, I guess that is a compliment.

Quote:

I'll quote exactly:

Is dishonesty a good work of your god? I said and I quote (indeed you even quoted me earlier):

"One more time - this time, please read. Professing to be faithful does not save anyone. Receiving Jesus as Saviour is what saves.
Further, your question is in and of itself contradictory because one cannot be faithful and not do good works. "

If you must lie about what I said to defend your faith, is it worth defending?

Intersting,
Tj3 claims he goes with Christian doctrine.
Catholic doctrine is the original Christian doctrine ans still is the FULL Christian doctrine.
So why isn't Tj3 a Catholic according to his word?
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

And Paul followed Pauline doctrine.

So "Pauline Doctrine" and "Christian Doctrine" are distinct? Why wasn't Paul following Christ's doctrine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

Intersting,
Tj3 claims he goes with Christian doctrine.

Christian doctrine came well before Catholic doctrine, because the Catholic church did not exist until 325AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

So "Pauline Doctrine" and "Christian Doctrine" are distinct? Why wasn't Paul following Christ's doctrine?

No they are not distinct, but it seems that De Maria thinks so.

Akoue,
Good question,
I eagerly await the answer.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Christian doctrine came well before Catholic doctrine, because the Catholic church did not exist until 325AD

You're the one who said he didn't want to talk about the history of doctrine, but only about the Bible. Do you take Paul to follow a doctrine other than that of Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

No they are not distinct, but it seems that De Maria thinks so.

Then why did you just claim that Paul adhered to "Pauline doctrine"? Is that a denomination?