Muhammad, the greatest man (peace be upon him and his family)

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Catholics are Christians. Only an ass would disagree with that.

not really. Some might be, most are not. Why? Because they mix law with grace.

So you're speculating that some might be saved and others not so much. Very bold speculation on your part.

And no we don't mix law with grace. Faith and works are subservient to grace in Ephesians 2:8,9 for a reason. First comes grace, then faith, then works. The reason for that is we cannot possibly by any observance of religious law merit eternal life. That doesn't mean we are left without obligations, as James said, faith without works is dead.

I could explain that in more detail, but I think you're misguided in thinking that Catholics mix law with grace. All Christians everywhere and in every age preach and believe the gospel of grace. Yes, Catholics are Christians, the original Christians. Before you set yourself out to judge us, you might want to do some praying, asking for humility, before making such rash judgments about your brothers and sisters in Christ.

yes but most RC's I know say they do not know if they are saved or are going to Heaven. We come to God naked and as sinners. NOTHING we do can get us in to Heaven or take away our own sins; even good works and obedience. In the RCC Catechism; many times it says we must do good works in order to be saved.

Those RC's are correct. Both presumption of salvation and despair of salvation are considered sins in our faith. Humility forces us to recognize that we will all stand before a just God, and even by grace we are "scarcely saved" (1Peter 4:18). We work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12, 13), the same kind of fear that the Israelites experienced as the angel of death passed over their homes only because it was covered with lamb's blood. Presumptuousness is a product of pride. It's a hideous sin to be avoided.

And yes, we must do good works in order to go to heaven. Matthew 25 is clear in distinguishing those bereft of good works going to perdition from those prolific in good works going to heaven in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and St. James says it in more pithy form saying, "See then that a man is saved by works and not faith alone" (2:24) the only time you see the words "faith alone" in scripture. Those who believe that faith without works can save you are not reading the Bible.

no! not at all. You do good works BECAUSE you are saved not to get saved or stay saved...works do not save.

"See then that a man is saved by works and not faith alone" (James 2:24)

 

[ninja007]

Is salvation by faith alone or by faith plus works

 

[ninja007]

not really. Some might be, most are not. Why? Because they mix law with grace.

So you're speculating that some might be saved and others not so much. Very bold speculation on your part.

And no we don't mix law with grace. Faith and works are subservient to grace in Ephesians 2:8,9 for a reason. First comes grace, then faith, then works. The reason for that is we cannot possibly by any observance of religious law merit eternal life. That doesn't mean we are left without obligations, as James said, faith without works is dead.

I could explain that in more detail, but I think you're misguided in thinking that Catholics mix law with grace. All Christians everywhere and in every age preach and believe the gospel of grace. Yes, Catholics are Christians, the original Christians. Before you set yourself out to judge us, you might want to do some praying, asking for humility, before making such rash judgments about your brothers and sisters in Christ.

yes but most RC's I know say they do not know if they are saved or are going to Heaven. We come to God naked and as sinners. NOTHING we do can get us in to Heaven or take away our own sins; even good works and obedience. In the RCC Catechism; many times it says we must do good works in order to be saved.

Those RC's are correct. Both presumption of salvation and despair of salvation are considered sins in our faith. Humility forces us to recognize that we will all stand before a just God, and even by grace we are "scarcely saved" (1Peter 4:18). We work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12, 13), the same kind of fear that the Israelites experienced as the angel of death passed over their homes only because it was covered with lamb's blood. Presumptuousness is a product of pride. It's a hideous sin to be avoided.

And yes, we must do good works in order to go to heaven. Matthew 25 is clear in distinguishing those bereft of good works going to perdition from those prolific in good works going to heaven in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and St. James says it in more pithy form saying, "See then that a man is saved by works and not faith alone" (2:24) the only time you see the words "faith alone" in scripture. Those who believe that faith without works can save you are not reading the Bible.

no! not at all. You do good works BECAUSE you are saved not to get saved or stay saved...works do not save.

"See then that a man is saved by works and not faith alone" (James 2:24)

read my reply. James is talking about the result of being saved leads to good works. If good works could save, we wouldn't need Jesus. You picked ONE verse.. how about my 50 I will give you on faith alone in Christ's finished work. There is NOTHING we can offer God or petition to God based on our OWN EFFORTS.

 

[ninja007]

Verses Showing Justification by Faith Bible and Justification by Faith Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[ninja007]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

That's why we're saved by grace. Works are necessary because faith without works is dead, but we're saved by grace.

Jesus tells a parable about the unprofitable servant that clarifies this succinctly. "We are unprofitable servants, we did our duty". It's in Luke 17. You should read it.

 

[ninja007]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

That's why we're saved by grace. Works are necessary because faith without works is dead, but we're saved by grace.

Jesus tells a parable about the unprofitable servant that clarifies this succinctly. "We are unprofitable servants, we did our duty". It's in Luke 17. You should read it.

Luke 17 isn't talking about good works and salvation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

That's why we're saved by grace. Works are necessary because faith without works is dead, but we're saved by grace.

Jesus tells a parable about the unprofitable servant that clarifies this succinctly. "We are unprofitable servants, we did our duty". It's in Luke 17. You should read it.

Luke 17 isn't talking about good works and salvation.

Actually, it is. Read it.

 

[ninja007]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

That's why we're saved by grace. Works are necessary because faith without works is dead, but we're saved by grace.

Jesus tells a parable about the unprofitable servant that clarifies this succinctly. "We are unprofitable servants, we did our duty". It's in Luke 17. You should read it.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says he has faith but has no works. This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith

 

[ninja007]

ONE SIN seperates us from God. All our works are as filthy rags....

That's why we're saved by grace. Works are necessary because faith without works is dead, but we're saved by grace.

Jesus tells a parable about the unprofitable servant that clarifies this succinctly. "We are unprofitable servants, we did our duty". It's in Luke 17. You should read it.

Luke 17 isn't talking about good works and salvation.

Actually, it is. Read it.

no matter how good we keep the law it deserves no reward.

 

[Ancient lion]

 

[Slyhunter]

He was a mass murderer and a pedophile.
His followers subjugate women. And attempt to kill or make second class citizens of all non-believers. They are at war with us and it is about time we fought back!

 

[Ancient lion]

 

[Slyhunter]

Can't even form a correct sentence "standing higher than the christianity" hah.
And your wrong about it being non-muslim perspective. The non-muslim perspective is that he's a pedophile and his followers are evil.

 

[Ancient lion]

 

[Dajjal]

Annie Besant's books would scare you, I have several of them and they talk of higher bodies and divine consciousness. As far as I can see she did not read enough about Muhammad or she would not have said the above.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am Muslim, and I speak from the traditional Islamic knowledge.

God Almighty sent 124 000 prophets on earth. They are honoured before God Almighty. Each one of them is a great king. The first to be a prophet was Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). The first prophet who came down on earth was Adam. The last one is Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). He is the Seal of the prophets. He is the last prophet and the best of them all. He is the king of the prophets, the king of all mankind, the king of all nations.

With him came holy and heavenly men, the Companions. After them came other holy and heavenly men the Successors. After these generations, other holy and heavenly men kept coming down on earth until today, in 2014. They are the saints of Islam.

Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) is he who made the Night Journey. This is his most famous miracle. As such, everone knows of the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad. He was supreme in moral character and he is the beloved of God Almighty. Everything that exists in the universes, every person on this planet and every creature that exists was created in the name of Muhammad and for Muhammad. He is the master of both worlds, peace be upon him and his family.

Why Muhammad (piss be upon him)?

Why not Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, or any of the other thousands of blood-soaked warlords in history? Muhammad (may he burn in hell) was a violent and evil man, but was he more violent than these others? Sure, he has caused more misery than Khan, but does this really elevate him? Stalin butchered more people in his life than Muhammad (may pigs devour his soul) did, so doesn't that make Stalin a greater man, using the rules of Islam?

 

[Uncensored2008]

He was a mass murderer and a pedophile.
His followers subjugate women. And attempt to kill or make second class citizens of all non-believers. They are at war with us and it is about time we fought back!

And those were his GOOD points...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I am Muslim, and I speak from the traditional Islamic knowledge.

God Almighty sent 124 000 prophets on earth. They are honoured before God Almighty. Each one of them is a great king. The first to be a prophet was Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). The first prophet who came down on earth was Adam. The last one is Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). He is the Seal of the prophets. He is the last prophet and the best of them all. He is the king of the prophets, the king of all mankind, the king of all nations.

With him came holy and heavenly men, the Companions. After them came other holy and heavenly men the Successors. After these generations, other holy and heavenly men kept coming down on earth until today, in 2014. They are the saints of Islam.

Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) is he who made the Night Journey. This is his most famous miracle. As such, everone knows of the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad. He was supreme in moral character and he is the beloved of God Almighty. Everything that exists in the universes, every person on this planet and every creature that exists was created in the name of Muhammad and for Muhammad. He is the master of both worlds, peace be upon him and his family.

Why Muhammad (piss be upon him)?

Why not Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, or any of the other thousands of blood-soaked warlords in history? Muhammad (may he burn in hell) was a violent and evil man, but was he more violent than these others? Sure, he has caused more misery than Khan, but does this really elevate him? Stalin butchered more people in his life than Muhammad (may pigs devour his soul) did, so doesn't that make Stalin a greater man, using the rules of Islam?

Good point. Jesus was unique in that he led no armies, called for no violence, and preached a gospel of peace. The few that compare to him, Ghandy, Prince Siddartha (Buddha), were noted for how peaceful their followers were. History is full of bloody, violent leaders, but very scant on those who preached love and practiced non violence.

Muhammad, (piss be upon him) was not special.

 

[Muslim75]

Muhammad(peace be upon him and his family) was not a violent warrior. In the battles he took part in, the Muslims were largely outnumbered or the situation was heavily against him. He always managed to miraculously, somehow, achieved a great and stunning victory.

Muhammad was peaceful, saying, O people, be good ones, not evil ones, love people, love God, respect everyone, pray at night when others sleep, don't speak bad of others, tell the truth always and you shall enter Paradise safely.