the question was does the bible say:
while your quote is nice and all, it clearly isn't the same.....
and it might imply a similar meaning, the personal lord and savior part is extra biblical.
Accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior
- Thread starter libby
- Start date
while your quote is nice and all, it clearly isn't the same.....
and it might imply a similar meaning, the personal lord and savior part is extra biblical.
Starman3000m
New Member
The Holy Bible makes it clear that mankind needs a personal Lord and Saviour and identifies that The Saviour is Christ alone - no one or nothing else.
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12)
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(Romans 3:19-26)
This is what the Jewish Disciples proclaimed to the "Orthodox religious leaders" who rejected Christ's claims:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:30-32)
Proclamation that we are saved through Jesus:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(John 3:14-18)
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10)
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:18)
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Libby, you're shooting yourself in the foot here and hurting your cause.
Your emotional response (Yes, that's right) to previous doctrinal rebukes is silly at best. You're arguing against clear Scriptural teaching even though it isn't stated word for word in the Bible. Many concepts are "inferred" in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with making up a word or phrase to denote a Scriptural concept, but it is completely wrong to make up a concept that is NOT even lightly inferred in the Bible...
Where in the Scripture does it say (word for word) that Mary is the Arc of the Covenant (as you've assumed)?
That she was sinless?
Assumed into Heaven?
Where does it say that ANY man made doctrine is to be taken over Scripture alone?
Where is the word "rapture"?
Ok? I could go on & on but I think you see the ridiculousness of these threads. Now go and take care of that foot wound darling..
PsyOps
Pixelated
What is the point of this discussion? Is anyone asserting that 'sola scriptura' means that everything we believe must come, word-for-word, directly from the bible?
Here's how Wiki explains 'sola scriptura':
Does this accurately describe 'sola scriptura'? If so, isn't perfectly reasonable to indirectly use valid logic to deduce that John 3:16 (or any other life-verse) means 'accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior'?
Here's how Wiki explains 'sola scriptura':
Does this accurately describe 'sola scriptura'? If so, isn't perfectly reasonable to indirectly use valid logic to deduce that John 3:16 (or any other life-verse) means 'accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior'?
I'm not saying that it's not true. Faith, by definition, is personal. If your faith is that Jesus is the Lord and Savior of men, then He is your personal Lord and Savior.
However, I see no command, or directive, by Him, to do so. I see Him tell me categorically to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but that is a heresy to may sola scriptura adherents.
"Accepting" that Jesus is the Savior is not all that there is to Christianity. True acceptance might be what governs our lives and guides our paths, but as has been said here before: even Satan knows Jesus is Lord and Savior.
Got to pick up the baby...can't finish my train of thought.
Zguy28
New Member
Okay, on eating the flesh, and drinking the blood.
You make the case elsewhere that "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Do you believe that includes the covenant with Noah? Noah was told not to eat blood in Genesis 9. This precedes Sinai and the Jews. Does it apply?
In addition, the apostle James declared at the first Jerusalem council that "my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."
Do you believe that applies to you Gentile believer Libby? Or not?
Last edited:
Right out of the box I would say that that is why Jesus provided a sacramental way of receiving His Body and Blood.
I'm sure there is a more thoughtful answer than that, but I'd have to read the passages and pray about it before I answer.
The RCC teaches that Jesus is "sacramentally" Present. Present in a sacred, yet no less real, way.
I could liken it to "the two shall become one". Are my dh and I one person? Well, no, not here on earth. But, I believe marriage is a sacrament, and in the eyes of God we are one and that oneness is manifested in our children, for instance.
It is all greater than what we can perceive in the natural world. Yeah, I guess that's it in a nutshell.
I'll see if I can come up with something more thorough.
Zguy28
New Member
I wanted to add this to my last post, but saw you already replied. So I will post it separately.
Jesus, after teaching that His flesh was the bread of life, was confronted by His disciples who did not understand it. His was reply was "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
I have explained this before. Just as the manna from heaven gave physical life to Israel, but they eventually physically died. So Jesus gives spiritual life with spiritual bread, which is signified by His flesh sacrificed on the cross. For the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable.
Jesus, after teaching that His flesh was the bread of life, was confronted by His disciples who did not understand it. His was reply was "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
I have explained this before. Just as the manna from heaven gave physical life to Israel, but they eventually physically died. So Jesus gives spiritual life with spiritual bread, which is signified by His flesh sacrificed on the cross. For the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable.
Would you agree that the OT was a foreshadowing of the greater things to come in the NT, or do you think the prophecies are greater than their fulfillments? For the moment, I'll assume you'll say the former.
The manna from heaven was a miraculous occurence, that did give them physical life. Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever"... He gives our souls (and at the end of time our bodies) eternal life. It doesn't make sense to my thinking that Jesus' miracle would be less than the OT prophecy, it must be a bigger deal.
Additionally, as you say, His disciples did not understand it precisely because they did[/I] think He was giving them His actual Flesh. That was what was disturbing to them, agreed? Jesus did not correct them because we see that they left Him as a result.
I would argue that by saying that the words He had spoken are spirit and life He was saying if we hear Him in the temporal/fleshly/earthly way we would not understand. But hearing with our spirit/soul, we would understand.
You don't believe that His Flesh was of "no help at all", right? After all, it was His giving up His Body for us that gave us salvation.
Zguy28
New Member
Indeed, and the Spirit that is in you is greater than any flesh. It sanctifies what flesh cannot.
He did correct them. They still did not understand, and hence left.
Mystical or not, you still believe that you are consuming actual flesh in the Eucharist, do you not?
Of course. That's what I am saying. His bread is food to quench the hunger of the soul. And not temporarily, but forever, securing our salvation. We will never be looking for another spiritual meal from anybody else ever again, for we have it in Christ. Not by somehow eating His literal flesh, but by His sanctification to our souls to bring the flesh into subjection.
Then why must you do it over and over again?
I don't see where He corrected them at all. If He had said that it was merely symbolic why do you suppose they left anyway? What would their objection be?
It is not over and over, the Sacrifice of Christ is always before the Father. Perhaps if you thought of it as re-presented to us, yet always before Him.
Why would that symbolism even be necessary and how can a symbol be efficacious? Didn't Jesus teach us that all of the symbolism, etc. of the OT/Old Covenant were not effective in achieving salvation? That would mean He was just replacing one meaningless symbol for another, wouldn't it? (I'm actually asking you here. I'm really rambling my thoughts (I'm a bit under the weather) so please bear with me.)
Toxick
Splat
Toxick
Splat
NO.
Man is fallible - and so is his logic.
Any inferences beyond what is written is clearly the product of your own delusional mind.
What you think is "inferred" is okay. What I think is "inferred" is an error. Honestly, the hubris!
Nothing wrong if you do it. Everything wrong if a Catholic does it.
I'm not the one who claims word for word is necessary, remember??
Where does the Bible tell us that Jesus said to compile a book of Scriptures? The church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
Rapture is not my doctrine.
Now go and take care of that foot wound darling..
You still have not proven your point to me, IT.
Zguy, my apologies. I do not know how to use the multi-quote feature you requested.
onel0126
Bead mumbler
If sola scriptura activists were honest with themselves, I think that they'd admit that this doctrine is less based on scripture than on the desire to avoid admitting of the authority of the magisterium in interpreting scripture.
Similarly, I think that the reduction of sacraments to mere symbols is based not on the scriptures but on the desire to avoid the need for priestly ordination by bishops in apostolic succession and in communion with Rome. Denying the authority of the Church to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments set the "reformers" free to advance their interpretation of scripture and form new churches independent of Rome.
Note that the notion of the ability of each person to interpret scripture on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit fell by the side pretty quickly when new and sometimes strange interpretations of scripture conflicted with the views of the likes of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.
In other words, decide what you want to do, then look for support in the scriptures for your position.
Zguy28
New Member
It's the big quotation mark button on the right side of each post.
The correction is in verse 45-48.
John 6:45-48 USCCB-NAB
45
It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
To eat the bread is to believe and have eternal life.
John 6:29 USCCB-NAB
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."
John Calvin wrote:
Besides what he formerly said, that he is the life-giving bread, by which our souls are nourished, in order to explain it more fully, he likewise repeats the contrast between this bread and the ancient manna, together with a comparison of the men.
Whenever he uses the word eat, he exhorts us to faith, which alone enables us to enjoy this bread, so as to derive life from it.
Have you ever considered verse 51 carefully?
John 6:51 USCCB-NAB
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
Who presents Christ's flesh as a sacrifice? Us or Christ?
Who is the High Priest who presents it? Us or Christ?
We are all a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), but Christ is the High Priest (Heb.4ff) and we are usurpers if we snatch the office of sacrificing His flesh from Him.
Do you believe Christ's blood had some inherent mystical quality, or do you believe it was "normal" human blood and that it was the act of sacrifice (the shedding of the blood) of a sinless person that caused our salvation?
It is interesting to compare the manna to Jesus Christ:
From commentator Warren Wiersbe:
(1) It came from heaven at night (physical); Christ came from heaven when men were in darkness (spiritual).
(2) It fell on the dew (physical); Christ came, born of the Spirit of God (spiritual).
(3) It was not defiled by the earth (physical); Christ was sinless, separate from sinners (spiritual).
(4) It was small, round, and white (physical), suggesting His humility, eternality, and purity (spiritual).
(5) It was sweet to the taste (physical); Christ is sweet to those who trust Him (spiritual).
(6) It had to be taken and eaten (physical); Christ must be received and appropriated by faith (John 1:12-13) (spiritual).
(7) There was sufficient for all (physical); Christ is sufficient for all (spiritual).
(8) If you did not pick it up, you walked on it (physical); if you do not receive Christ, you reject Him and walk on Him (Heb. 10:26-31) (spiritual).
(9) It was wilderness food (physical); Christ is our food in our pilgrim journey to heaven (spiritual).
Last edited:
Zguy28
New Member
It ultimately goes back to your question about community of believers vs. institutional church.
Post Tenebras Lux
Starman3000m
New Member
You mean like: Mary is the "ark of the covenant," Mary remained a perpetual virgin and was assumed up to Heaven where she reigns today alongside Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Helper" "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," and also helps souls get into Heaven.
Or a place called "purgatory" where people need to have their sins cleansed a bit more before entry into Heaven and through faithful attendance of mass and partaking of sacraments will lessen the amount of time spent in purgatory.
Not to mention that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus appointed for establishing the "true church" with the title of the first pope? Or, that the Vatican is the officially sanctioned dispenser of the Gospel and all the world should revere and acknowledge papal authority?
In other words, the Vatican decided what it wanted you to believe then looked for "support" in scriptures for its position and when none could be found needed to resort to papal infallibility (as Vicar of Christ) to make such proclamations.
The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Gospel and Jesus of the New Testament.
onel0126
Bead mumbler
You mean like: Mary is the "ark of the covenant," Mary remained a perpetual virgin and was assumed up to Heaven where she reigns today alongside Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Helper" "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," and also helps souls get into Heaven.
Or a place called "purgatory" where people need to have their sins cleansed a bit more before entry into Heaven and through faithful attendance of mass and partaking of sacraments will lessen the amount of time spent in purgatory.
Not to mention that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus appointed for establishing the "true church" with the title of the first pope? Or, that the Vatican is the officially sanctioned dispenser of the Gospel and all the world should revere and acknowledge papal authority?
In other words, the Vatican decided what it wanted you to believe then looked for "support" in scriptures for its position and when none could be found needed to resort to papal infallibility (as Vicar of Christ) to make such proclamations.
The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Gospel and Jesus of the New Testament.
I'm rather disappointed I didn't get the There is Only One Truth. Yes to pretty much all that you said--that was my point, SS subscribers are no different than others they attack for the same reason.