What should I do with this?

Oh you know what? No, nevermind.

I demand that you recognize me, in accordance with my biblical interpretation. I need not argue this further, flat out rejecting to recognize my biblical interpretation of the bible because I'm not protestant is double think.

Attached: 22d8e056b80ba89bd8c4ecfbaf11d1d67ff911e6bf00d567705edef8146eb6ab.jpg (960x816, 131.97K)

Etc
Etc
All of these are metaphors guys.

Who's that Saint friend?
I had a Canadian friend who had this man as his profile pic.

I recognize your belief and I'm asserting that you're wrong, just like you do to me. This is not spiteful.
I did not say that practicing the Lord's supper is unbiblical, i said that sacraments are anti-biblical

A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another
How could baptizing and receiving the holy spirit possibly be metaphors?

I practice the lord's supper and baptism. They are instructions to follow for believers, so we call them ordinances. They do not convey grace because that would be works salvation.

I believe that's Saint Benedict

What is work salvation? Is this the new misinterpretation that prots have of Catholic theology?
Why the need of the baptism and receiving the Holy spirit? Why did Christ and the apostles bothered themselves to do it?
Why do the Early Church Fathers and the Didache disagree with the protestant theology but agrees with the cathodox one? Why Saint John being alive and well during the pontificate of the third Pope said nothing against this and reached to his disciples like Papias the same Catholic doctrine?
Was everybody including the Apostles heretics?

Thanks bro.

Thanks friend. I've been putting off telling my extended family that I'm converting but this is a good a time to be honest as any.

Attached: 1fca149b7e69f8a7df92804c4048ff04.jpg (652x800, 141.42K)

Better be honest now before going to deep. Its bad for your family because you will have to lie them even harder and bad for your soul since you had to have a double standard for God.
Ill pray for you user. Hope everything turns out OK.

...

St. Paul wrote about works separate from God being dead. Faith without works is dead.

Ergo, Faith with works is living.

Yes, this is not a contradiction with sola fide
If you do not have faith, your works will evidence this

excellent, so now you agree that salvation requires works from the faithful, barring certain circumstances like the Good Thief.

no, you have it backwards
the works do not bring the salvation or that would be a contradiction with ephesians 2:9

you are saved and will necessarily bear fruit, or we could identify that you were not truly saved like those in Matthew 7
The profession of faith followed by immediate salvation seen in the thief on the cross is the normative progression, not the exception. Just like Ephesians 2:9 says it is "through faith, not of works"
John 3:16 says "whoever believes in him shall not perish"

I never said that. The Church teaches that Faith comes first, then the faithful do good works that merit salvation in the first place.

circular logic

explain.

works without faith are in vain, faith without works is in vain.

Faith from the grace of God comes first, then good works must issue forth.

That is not circular logic.

You're saying that the future works of the Christian merit (make him worthy of) the salvation, but he hasn't yet performed them to receive the salvation
This is a logical contradiction unless you have some spiritualized middle knowledge doctrine

Your options are

Once again, I never said that.

Being that you're arguing against a point I've never made, allow me to explain. God gives Grace frequently, at His leisure and Will. We never know when man does or does not respond to this Grace.

I'm Catholic, not Calvinist.

What the Church teaches is:

both teachings which are backed up in Scripture

Are you meaning a different use of "merit" here? I deliberately provided the definition for clarification

That's how we know the catholic church is wrong, because this is a direct contradiction with Ephesians 2

The point is Faith without works is dead, we underline the point.

Are you really not understanding my explanation, or are you playing some semantic game?

You are not addressing my argument.

Faith without works is dead. Works without faith has no merit within itself.

Ergo, Faith with works is salvation for all Christians, barring those who come last.

that's exactly what you are doing though?

No Church ever taught what you taught for over 1,500 years…except for Pelagians, I think.

I highlighted the contradiction
"You're saying that the future works of the Christian merit salvation"
"the faithful do good works that merit salvation in the first place."

lets presume that's true, does that make contradicting scripture permissible?
There is no way to reconcile Ephesians 2, John 3, etc. with a "faith AND" gospel

See my image to clarify the timeline of salvation and works. What does the catholic one look like?

Attached: Untitled.png (800x606, 24.29K)

There is no contradiction, you're implying a sort of Calvinism where I never stated as such. We believe in Free Will, and God gives Grace when He pleases. Men are free to ignore God's grace.

You just played a semantic game! Faith with works = completely square with Scripture.

Faith without works is dead. Ergo, Faith WITH works is…fill in the blank!

honestly help me understand where we're miscommunicating
These are restructures of the same statement

I'm not protesting the reality of faith coinciding with works. The doctrine of sola fide means works are unrelated with receiving salvation. A "faith AND" gospel means adding requirements to be saved.
After salvation, you will have faith with works.

Which is a semantic game, because the Church never teaches that Faithful who do works, but later return like a dog to their vomit, is saved.

Rather, we teach that to be in mortal sin not even one righteous work that you do can save you.

But you keep changing the semantic definition!

It's not "faith AND"
It's not "faith coinciding with"

It's FAITH with WORKS.

A false doctrine that will lead many to Hell, to be sure.

You only receive Salvation which Jesus Christ tells you, "You have done well with my good and faithful servant."

If you're agreeing that it's the same statement, why did you earlier protest and say "i never said that">>747811

Let me use the phrase in only one way for clarity:
You do not need faith with works to be saved, because salvation is by faith alone
You will have faith with works after salvation if you are saved
Someone who shows faith without works has dead faith, i.e. he does not have salvation

The Bible says you can know you have salvation while living

Which is disproved by Scripture with "Faith without works is dead".

Here's the crux of the matter, you believe Salvation is already given to you during life, we believe that Salvation is only given when Jesus Christ judges the man. There's enough scripture to disprove your particular teaching, here's one: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is clearly a rebuttal, even out of context.

Now this is circular reasoning. Does not the Sacred Scripture also tell us to that the pursuit of Heaven is like a foot race? You don't know you've won until you've won.

All you've done this whole time is make that assertion with no argument. Give me your reading on Ephesians 2 that doesn't contradict this idea of requiring works to receive salvation

why?
Paul and company knew they were saved

Yooo…i just learned so much legitimate info on this thread. THIS is why i abandoned fb a bit ago.

Is there maybe an abandoned church nearby, preferably with a cross that can be flipped upside down?

An upside down cross is actually a Christian symbol known as a Petrine or St Peter's cross. St Peter was crucified upside down because he didn't think he was worthy enough to have the same death as Christ.

zoom!

Medium answer: It's not as unanimous as you seem to think, but even if it were a majority or the whole of early Christian teachers being in favor of works salvation, the Bible plainly disagrees
Long answer: enroll in an evangelical seminary
Even shorter answer: the church tradition disagrees with the founder of my sect's interpretation of the Bible so I will just reject it.

Even shorter answer: the church tradition disagrees with the founder of my sect's interpretation of the Bible so I will just reject it.

What's more I don't get how you say the bible plainly disagrees when there's James Epistle which clearly rejects that doctrine. Even if you mental gymnastic around it that means the bible doesn't plain disagrees with the Catholic opinion, it might disagree in your opinion but it's not plain nor explicitly.
Luther was smart enough to realise this and wanted to remove the Epistle of James with other NT texts, but fortunately some of his friends advised him otherwise.
Even Paul whom you guys misinterpreted on purpose ridiculously thinking the "works if the law" in Romans mean our works instead of the works of the dead mosaic law, Paul himself says that Faith only works though charity.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by Charity.
And not to mention the parable of Jesus about the two houses and how the storm destroys one and not the other etc.
St. Peter rightly spoke about you saying:
2 Peter 3:15-16
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Okay so, is this works salvation?

My sides

I'm pretty sure that the Apostle meant the Body and Blood were more than metaphors. Or that the people who were getting sick from their carelessness weren't just "metaphorically" sick.

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor 11:27-29

It sounds like serious business to me.

I'm pretty sure that the Apostle meant the Body and Blood were more than metaphors. Or that the people who were getting sick from their carelessness weren't just "metaphorically" sick.

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." 1 Cor 11:27-30

It sounds like serious business to me.

John 6:56
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Jesus for the first time actually says my flesh is meat indeed and my blood drink indeed.
If he had just said "my flesh is my meat" only there could be ground to make a claim it was metaphorical. But Jesus says "indeed" meaning He is saying it literally.
I just don't know why protestants don't respect my personal interpretation of the Bible. In my personal interpretation the Bible tells me that the Pope is the head of the Church, that you need the sacraments, that the Eucharisty is literally the body of Christ…
They just get mad at me because I like the dude in Rome with the funny hat.

attention catholics: merely asserting your position is not a valid debate strategy

I'm not appealing to a certain man's exposition, I'm appealing to the plain reading of scripture
I am still waiting for the catholic interpretation of ephesians 2
As I've restated many times, this is not in contest with James 2. I even drew a diagram.

What's wrong with ephesians?
What diagram? And what part of "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself." don't you understand.
I seriously would like to know what mental gymnastics you use to avoid this issue.
Since when the Church believes that any of the Mosaic precepts are needed for salvation. Are you winnie the pooh kidding me?
Color me surprised. Faith without love is dead. That's is. Faith only exists through love, which means that without the latter there's no faith. So faith alone is wrong. But wtv you want to think. If you can work your way around James 2 you can do this too.
Those you have faith and do what Jesus said will have houses that will stand against very storm.
On the contrary those who just merely believe can be shaken by everything and it will go down at the first storm.
Its quite obvious if you read the gospel.
Matthew 7:24
Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and does them shall be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.
How much more explicit you want?
Aren't you the one twisting the words of Paul?
Or is it me? If I'm the one then I'm in good company with the Apostles and their disciples.

What's your problem with Ephesians?
Then tell me. From the 900 million protestants there are in the world or to make it easier from the 30 000 denominations that exist in what kind of prots should I believe? The only thing they have in common is that they broke away from the Catholic Church.
Should I believe in your interpretation? What makes you right and pastor Anderson or some other dude wrong?

Ephesians 2 teaches that salvation comes through faith not of works.
Diagram is here

I'm not alleging this, I'm saying that teaching works salvation from this passage is wrong
Are you saying that "charity" means you have to do works to be saved?
Tiresome semantic argument
"Sola fide", "Faith alone" is exclusively in reference to works for salvation. You can hold to Sola Fide and say "Faith and love" or even "faith and repentance"

And what is it that Jesus said to do here? Ask for salvation

Have you ever read what the Catholic doctrine teaches about justification?
One who does good works cannot be saved without faith.
James uses a definition of faith which just means belief. If you say you believe in Jesus but do not practice what he teaches, your belief serves you nothing, aka your faith is dead.
I have faith in Christ because I believe he is God and that the Church is his bride, therefore since I believe in what Jesus told me I have to do the sacraments and all the rest, because he said we needed them for salvation. If I rejected them then it wouldn't be the Catholic faith.
A Catholic is saved because he believes in Jesus Christ and if he believes he will practice what he taught, but if he doesn't even if he knows what he did was wrong goes to hell.
Humans can change and triumph over temptations.

Let's settle things once for all.
How do you think a man can be saved?
Otherwise we are losing ourselves over the meaning of faith and the meaning of works.
Lutherans also say they are correct, calvinists also say they are correct etc.
Why should I trust you when the Catholic Church is the one that maintains apostolic succession and is leaded by the successor of S. Peter himself?
I have reached one. It just isn't the one you like.

I am in agreement

By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ
It can't, because the origin is faulty. The doctrine of the papacy is not biblically founded and Peter never held such an office.
You should have no reason to trust me at face value

One thing more about the biblical stuff. How did the people before the bible was compiled got to reach a biblically informed conclusion
before the Canon was decided by the catholics and orthodoxs and the Bible compiled by the same men?
Where were the Baptists in all this? Is it a new church? And why did the Catholic Church fail then if Christ said it wouldn't?
Now for your next questions:
What is believing in Jesus Christ? Define belief. Because I believe in Christ as well. Do Baptists believe that catholics go to heaven as well?
Except that Christ tells him to be the Sheppard of all Christians and men like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Papias (a disciple of St. John. St. Joh was alive when St. Clement of Rome was the third Pope) St. Justin Martin etc etc just to mention those who lived during the apostles time and right after all are unanimous saying that Peter was the finest Bishop of Rome.

winnie the pooh phone

How did I get saved before I read the bible? Someone told me the gospel
Baptist is a theological term. We are called baptists for our practice of believers baptism by immersion, the only mode found in the bible. We do not claim to have exclusive power in interpreting the Bible and we don't call ourselves a church of which you must be a member to be saved. Churches are local congregations

First tell me, do you reject this answer?
Most baptists never consider it and would say "yes"
I once had an old country pastor explain to me that catholics could only be saved in spite of catholicism, because the catholic gospel is false. If you are trusting in works to save you, you are not fully placing your trust in Jesus.

where?
I have no reason to believe Peter was ever in rome. I do not reject the office of "bishop of rome" though

Baptists are just the 28261th grouo of american protestants with no idea about theology, Church history, councils or tradition.

Salvation by the way is through GRACE ALONE. Justification is through faith (belief) and works (love and charity), both of which are necessary for it to be considered that the grace of God is accepted. Both of those are enabled by God's grace, so there is no personal merit in neither. This is stated one and again in every single compilation of atholic doctrine. You can see that both you and your pastor have no idea of what you are talking about,which is the result of centuries of rejecting the authority that has existed since the very first Christians, who had a singñe hierarchy. There has never been several Churches, which is why ecumenicql councils, for example, exist. Saying theñat there are several churches because someone talks to them meaning the Church in a location makes as much sense as saying that there are several Churches because a church is just a building.

Go read the Fathers of the Church and the saints and actual doctrine instead of going to some LARPing club with a random lay person whose knowledge of Christianity is on par with that of Muhammed. Or better yet, dont do so, and keep being a fine example of the fruits of protestantism becausr you are a coward that doesnt dare to leave the random group of lay people that your parents brought you to.

Thanks for the info. So it's just a Bible study club founded that baptises people by full immersion. Which has no weight telling which one is right or wrong.
What answer? I believe in Christ.
Jesus himself told us to do what he taught. I'm not gonna tell him I don't need to lol.
Matthew 16:28 and John 21.
Everyone that lived back then said so. Where they all lying? Is Catholicism the worlds biggest conspiracy plot?
I thought we are going to discuss in the truth, not invent excuses to reject historical facts. Other protestants argue other reasons for not being catholics that although wrong, don't try to invent or disprove what really happened.
In what way then? Is the Pope the Bishop of Rome to you? You recognise there is a Church hierarchy?

Basically this, just like every prot. specially the American branch

You're obviously not American and have little familiarity with American baptists
Baptists are at the center of theological study in the US and church history is extremely important

It is not a club of unschooled laypeople sitting around making up new readings of the Bible

A man is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. True or false?

If you don't do what he tells you to do then dead is your belief and will do no good to you.
Then belief only isn't enough. Then the answer is no.

I'd like to add another thing I forgot in the previous post.
I could pick up a book written by Buddha or some other tigger and then 500 years later I could make my own church of people who believe what he wrote that book and I would have the common protestant church built on some other than Jesus. I could pick on the books of Freud and 5000 years later do the same thing.
Inb4 I'm using the atheistic argument that we picked up the bible and made a religion. In the case of protestantism this couldn't be more correct.
In this case the bible is just another book written by dead people, with there words, that is just another heavy paperweight.
But in the case of the Catholic Church things couldn't be more different.
The bible by itself is dead, but the word of God becomes alive by the Spirit of the church and its people and tradition.
The story for us doesn't end in the Acts of the Apostles.
The history of Christ didn't end in the last book of the Bible.
If someone bothered to write to bible would be still in progress today.
We are the living words of God. You and I are characters in this story.
I'm part of this big bible called church history so as every Christian.
The Holy Spirit is still working on the Church and it will until the end of the world.
The bible isn't dead because we keep reviving it every single day.
Even its formation was subject to life. First the Jews wrote part of it, then it was the apostles of Christ and now, although we don't write in there anymore the people of God continue their walk though this Earth until the end of the world.
The bible isn't just a book we've picked up.
We wrote the Bible and the Bible is just one of the things that tell us God was with us, so he will always be.
In other words, God isn't dead.

You're in direct contest with scripture
Acts 16:30-31 NASB — and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Of course they had to convert.
Do you actually think he meant just believe and then do nothing, don't show up for mass, don't even be baptised because all you need is just belief etc.
Even the devils believe in Christ in that case.

But then it comes back to the question of "what is meant by belief". Belief in Jesus means that you truly believe that he is your savior, and that you are filled with the Holy Spirit. Belief in Jesus as your savior is not "have faith in Him and do good works so he can save you" it is "have faith in Him, that he may save you through grace". A true believer will show good works regardless because that is what their faith would have them do. Whether those works are necessary for their salvation is debatable, the thief on the cross didn't do good works because he didn't have the capacity to do so yet he was still saved. You shouldn't do good works because you fear that you'll go to hell if you don't, you should do good works because that's what Christ wants you to do as a believer. Your works are a sign of gratitude for His gift, kind of like paying it forward to someone else. That's my take on it anyway, maybe I'm wrong and if I am I'd love to hear what's right.

This about sums it up in one go. Very well put.

And how do you know that?
Of course. That's called perfect contrition. Read what that user said: Salvation by the way is through GRACE ALONE.
It was the grace of God that saved the thief. I guess your not familiar with the doctrine of grace.

Read this article were it explains what we catholics believe. It's explains much better than I can.
This stuff is freely on the Internet so there's no excuse for misinformation on the protestants party, unless pretending to be ignorance is useful for some pastors to steer away the faithful.

This article
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

I'm comming from the Presbyterian tradition going into Catholicism.

The difference in the teaching of Works is almost non-existent. Catholic teach it's required to do Good works for fruit to grow and to provide justification of Faith.

Faith alone, truthfully isn't much different. It teaches good works is a fruit in it self of Good faith. Which comes down to having faith in Christ and doing his word.

The Catholics explain why we do Christs word, and The Protestsnts teach just Christs word.

you have a false assumption that baptism, confession, and communion are "work". the power of the sacraments, established and commanded of us by Christ, comes from Christ, not the person partaking. There is essentially no "work" done by the faithful in these divine and life-creating mysteries, only an effort of the will to receive God into their heart, mind, body, and soul. All of it is orchestrated and sustained by God, and His grace. I dont know why you refuse to be obedient to Our Lord, and instead champion your own reason, and your own self will.

Attached: 48428996_110386800021173_8908157111326736384_n.jpg (419x500, 58.52K)

Perhaps he is talking about getting up Sunday morning and going to Mass to receive the sacraments.
That indeed requires works like getting up and having a bath.

Are you saying that baptism is required for salvation, but it isn't a work?

It's a vehicle of grace

Is that a yes or no

What is a winnie the pooh work for God's sake?
The baptism clears all the original and actual sin, you receive God's grave which will help you during your life as a Christian and finally you become a member of the church.
You really have to explain us what is a work.
I'm not very good at anti Catholic theology.

a work is something you physically do
Do you think you must be baptized to go to heaven?

Attached: ergon work.png (985x784, 118.65K)

But of course. It was Jesus who said so.
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Everyone who isn't baptised isn't a member of the Church and therefore Satan awaits.

**we mustn't forget though there people who want to receive the baptism but that becomes impossible (exemple. Dying with no one nearby to baptise him) in that case they are saved because they wished for the baptism, and why wouldn't they get what they wished for?
That's the baptism of desire. (however if he survives he needs to be baptised by water. After all it was his wish). There too the baptism of blood. A Martyr for the Catholic faith if he dies before being baptised, (example a catechumen) is nonetheless saved because he died for Christ and those who lose their lives for Him, shall find it. They are baptised in their blood so to speak.**

Do you agree that baptism is a work?

It ain't a deep or task.
Its a Sacrament.
And even if it was what would be the problem I ask.

It's not a work of the individual being baptised. It could be considered a work of the person doing the baptising.

Damn aren't you eager to prove something.
Its the Lord's grace that saves you.

if it were, it couldn't bring salvation without contradicting Ephesians 2:9
This is the baptist position, that it is an ordinance to follow after salvation

interesting pivot, I disagree
Do you agree that taking the lord's supper is a work?

A change of direction in what exactly?
I do not believe taking part in a Sacrement such as the Eucharist is a work either, it's a vehicle for Faith to transpire.

I'm

So you may know the context of my understanding

a change in explanation from the norm, I'm not meaning to say you're fickle on your doctrine
Why do you not believe that the sacraments are works?

Do you think that foot washing is a work?

Foot washing would be a work in my view yes. That it a likeness of Christ that we would be called to fulfill.

Because these are things that bring us into Communion with Jesus where he is the high priest. So for instance giving the Eucharist as Priest would be considered a work- because you're doing the work of the High Priest Christ. But if you're there merely for the communion of the Body and Blood then you are not doing the work of the High Priest you are being subject to him.

Oh I see where you are trying to get with Ephesians lol.
It means that whatever you do is worthless if God's grace isn't in you. Without God's grace you will perish no matter if you are like mother Theresa of Calcutá. She is in heaven not because of her works, or her own growth as a synonym, but because of God's grace.
You are saved because of God's grace that's the Catholic doctrine.
And ironically ephesians are the reason we need the sacraments. For they convey God's grace to us.

bruh if you think doing things physically cannot merit salvation then you deny Christs Incarnation

why are protestants such heretics

"work" ἔργον doesn't mean to priestly duties, it refers to all action
biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2041.htm

Exactly my point of opposition. sacraments are works and so can not convey (salvific) grace

I think we're concluding that the catholic/sacramentalist answer is that sacraments are not works, and that's the only way out of Ephesians 2:9
Is that said in your catechism somewhere?

Would you both agree that if sacraments were works, they could not bring salvation? This is a direct statement in the Bible.

Yeah I never said it did. Taking part in Sacrements isn't an active (masculine) part of Faith, it's a passive (feminine) part where we are to receive grace.

Thank you for the cool diction definition tho, I appreciate it. :)

to rephrase so that you dont twist my words

if you find physical deeds so repulsive and non-conducive to the Divine plan of salvation, then you reject Gods Logic that required Christ to come down physically, get baptised physically, heal physically, undergo His passion physically, and eventually be crucified physically.

Yes, no matter what we do in order to achieve enlightenment or salvation by our own power, we would not be able to reach Heaven because we are mortal and limited. Only when we obey Gods Will and accept His grace do we ever merit. And God commanded us to imitate Christ, and to receive sacraments.

Belief is not soley mental acceptance of the reality of Christ, it is bringing that reality of Christ in the flesh, like He did, and thus according to Divine Wisdom we sometimes have to do physical things to cooperate with His Plan.

Amen brother

gotcha, so it sounds like you don't think baptism or the lords supper are requirements to receive salvation
that's the point I'm trying to stay on and argue for

For any man besides Christ, we can not earn salvation. Christ was able to live a perfect life that we could not, making him the only suitable sacrifice.
I am in agreement with this post
what you said here though,

meaning
but the Bible says
do you see the dilemma?
This is not a twisting of your words

that's the point I'm trying to stay on and argue for
Are you a snake? Because you are twisting my words now as well because you completely disregard the Faith of Christianity when you make those claims against me. If so shame on you for not conversing in good Faith.

Those are vital elements of Christianity, it us on us to recieve the gifts that Christ brought from Heaven. It is not works as they are gifts for us to receive. Attending to the gifts and paasing them along is what works is! Not recieving!

I understood "I never said it did" as referring to "sacraments can not convey grace", I think that was my mistake

I think you're maintaining that sacraments aren't works. Is that right?

No, that is not what made him the suitable sacrifice. God is perfect, so with that Nature of Christ is he was fully Perfect, not because he chose to be so he just was. He never sinned because that is our Nature, yet he was still tempted by our sin since he was fully man.

The Sacrifice was only to be fulfilled by the Son of God, it's not even a question of who else could of done it- it would be impossible. His perfect nature didn't let him be the sacrifice, it was destined from the beginning, there is no other thought or Word that would fulfill HIS destiny.

It is a Gift. Everything he does for us is a Gift. Nothing we can do can ever merit grace. But God is just and he does view us by our actions and our heart. Works are called to us, and we are to fulfill them, if we do not God will see our hearts as being untrue to the actions and words that we have said.

If you are receiving sacrements there are not works, yes.
If you give the sacrements there are works.

Boom, trips of righteousness.