Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

The level of cluelessness in this comment is beyond words.

BUDOS said:

---

Thanks for the advice and support. I cherry pick from the comments that are made. Sometimes because I learn from them, other times because it allows me to present these arguments to the class, including how some people get caught up in what "average " Christians rarely give much thought.
I'm pretty secure in my faith and my beliefs as it relates to salvation issues and the more "popular" areas we deal with as average Christians. Again, I like to glean from the comments, but I don't have the background or desire to compete with the ones who are fighting to prove that they're the king of the sandbox.

---

Straight up questions - and if you dodge them or don't give an answer, it'll show that you do not have the discernment to be a bible teacher just as much as a wrong answer will. It'll also show that your beliefs that you are "secure in" have something very, very wrong about them. And if so, it's a good bet that that your perceptions regarding the motivations of commenters here, such as your claim that it's about "fighting to prove who's the king of the sandbox" are likewise faulty, and you shouldn't trust them.

1) Are prayers to Mary that call her "sovereign", "god of this world", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", and "Mediatrix" and prayers that say you give Mary "your heart and soul" and that you "place [your] salvation in her hands" idolatrous and heretical, and a clear example of worship?

2) Are the psalms I posted earlier where God and Jesus are either removed or replaced from the Psalms in the Old Testament and Mary is inserted in their place idolatrous and heretical, and a clear example of worship?

3) Is the Fatima message I posted earlier point come from God, does it point one to Jesus or not, and is it clearly an anti-biblical and anti-Christian message?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

The level of cluelessness in this comment is beyond words.

---

Your clueless about Greek is beyond words. You did not refute me.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

The level of cluelessness in this comment is beyond words.

---

Your clueless about Greek is beyond words. You did not refute me.

---

Waco, if you want to claim expertise in the language of Greek, you have to do a lot better than what you posted.

Dude, you even guessed about whether Greeks use punctuation. Also, you don't seem to grasp that lower case letters were invented in the 9th Century, for Greek as well as Latin and all the other major languages.

In any case, you also seem to lack any awareness of linguistic idioms of Greek and Latin. You could have cited scholars of the age, but you did not. Instead, you posted what seemed to be a 4th-grade rant.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

The level of cluelessness in this comment is beyond words.

---

Your clueless about Greek is beyond words. You did not refute me.

---

There's no need to refute a completely irrelevant point. The fact that early Greek was written in all capitals has absolutely nothing to do with the capitalization of the "m" in "mother" by Roman Catholics in today's English when referring to Mary. It's just so bizarre how you think it's actually some kind of a defense or justification. It's just so incoherent a thought that I don't even know where to begin to criticize it.

Fre3dombear said:

---

On the topic of John 6:53 etc, this is a quote from Justin Martyr an early church father that I'm sure the group here is familiar with:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

He was almost alive at the time the Aostles that walked with Jesus were dying off.

So much of this all goes back to the very beginning

---

There is no question that for the first millenium and a half all Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. This is attested to by scripture which indicates that communion taken unworthily can poison and kill the recepient. Something that is little more than a birthday cake in memory of an event would have no power to do this.

The real question is how is that real presence manifested. Is it a form of atomic alchemy? Or is it merely a mystery that we cannot explain?

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

On the topic of John 6:53 etc, this is a quote from Justin Martyr an early church father that I'm sure the group here is familiar with:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

He was almost alive at the time the Aostles that walked with Jesus were dying off.

So much of this all goes back to the very beginning

---

There is no question that for the first millenium and a half all Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. This is attested to by scripture which indicates that communion taken unworthily can poison and kill the recepient. Something that is little more than a birthday cake in memory of an event would have no power to do this.

The real question is how is that real presence manifested. Is it a form of atomic alchemy? Or is it merely a mystery that we cannot explain?

---

Humans cannot understand much of what God does.

God spoke all Creation into existence. Next to that I doubt the Eucharist is difficult for Him, even if it - like so much - remains well beyond our ken.

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

On the topic of John 6:53 etc, this is a quote from Justin Martyr an early church father that I'm sure the group here is familiar with:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

He was almost alive at the time the Aostles that walked with Jesus were dying off.

So much of this all goes back to the very beginning

---

There is no question that for the first millenium and a half all Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. This is attested to by scripture which indicates that communion taken unworthily can poison and kill the recepient. Something that is little more than a birthday cake in memory of an event would have no power to do this.

The real question is how is that real presence manifested. Is it a form of atomic alchemy? Or is it merely a mystery that we cannot explain?

---

Scripture does NOT say that the bread and wine poisons the unworthy recipient to ill health or death. What happens to the recipient is merely a judgement that is not necessarily related to the actual substance of the bread and wine.

But whether you regard the "real presence" as physical transubstantiation or merely a mysterious spiritual phenomena, the real question is what does eating the bread and drinking the wine do for one's salvation, if it does anything for it at all. The point I've been making is that if the bread and wine are the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, as Roman Catholics believe, then the same literal interpretation of the biblical source upon which that is derived would also make salvation entirely dependent on eating the communion/Eucharist meal; that is, the entirety of salvation rests on what you put in your stomach, regardless of what you believe. This is obviously false, therefore the literal interpretation doesn't work.

Sorry I haven't been around. Been extremely sick all week.

I think your misunderstanding of communion is caused by your misunderstanding of salvation.

I think your view of salvation is probably typically Zwinglian - an event brought about by accepting Christ's death on the cross as substitionary atonement followed by OSAS, making communion superfluous.

Which is not entirely correct given what the Bible says: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:10). Some translations say saved in his life. So reconciled by his death on the cross but saved by/in his life.

Salvation is the entire process that begins with our reconciliation, continues with "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24) and ends when our physical bodies fall asleep in the Lord and our souls go to heaven to be with him.

Partaking of the life of Christ through regular communion is part of this process.

Realitybites said:

---

I think your misunderstanding of communion is caused by your misunderstanding of salvation.

I think your view of salvation is probably typically Zwinglian - an event brought about by accepting Christ's death on the cross as substitionary atonement followed by OSAS, making communion superfluous.

Which is not entirely correct given what the Bible says: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:10). Some translations say saved in his life. So reconciled by his death on the cross but saved by/in his life.

Salvation is the entire process that begins with our reconciliation, continues with "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24) and ends when our physical bodies fall asleep in the Lord and our souls go to heaven to be with him.

Partaking of the life of Christ through regular communion is part of this process.

---

Then straight up, answer the question - if someone believes in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, but does not ever take part in communion, they aren't saved and go to Hell?

That would depend on the circumstances, really.

If you are capable of communing and refuse to do so, that is indicative of a deeper spiritual sickness. On the other hand, if you cannot receive communion due to circumstances beyond your control that is another matter. For what does the Bible say? "But he that knew not and committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48).

This isn't a one size fits all proposition.

Furthermore, what does Jesus say after he tells people "Your sins are forgiven?" "Go and sin no more." Much of what you dismiss are the tools God has given us through his Church to aid us in that.

Realitybites said:

---

That would depend on the circumstances, really.

If you are capable of communing and refuse to do so, that is indicative of a deeper spiritual sickness. On the other hand, if you cannot receive communion due to circumstances beyond your control that is another matter. For what does the Bible say? "But he that knew not and committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48).

This isn't a one size fits all proposition.

Furthermore, what does Jesus say after he tells people "Your sins are forgiven?" "Go and sin no more." Much of what you dismiss are the tools God has given us through his Church to aid us in that.

---

You see, here we go again. You guys make a definitive claim (communion is part of the necessary process to salvation) and then you hedge. It's just constant double-talk.

Either communion is necessary for salvation, or it isn't. If you're saying that God still allows those who don't partake to be saved, then it isn't necessary. For God to send someone to Hell, despite the fact that they have faith and trust in Jesus, for not doing something that he exempted others for not doing is not in line with a God of justice and doesn't make any sense at all. It's also saying that salvation for some people is entirely dependent on performative works, regardless of their faith. Saying that God's salvation works on sliding scale for different people is a complete affront to the gospel message and the character of God.

Refusing to partake in communion if you can, is a sin, but it's no more a "deep spiritual sickness" than any other act of disobedience towards God. Are you perfect?

Quote:

---

Saying that God's salvation works on sliding scale for different people is a complete affront to the gospel message and the character of God.

---

I mean the Bible outright says that much is expected from whose to whom much is given. Again, it all comes back to your misunderstanding what salvation is. No one is perfect except Christ.

"This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the [Roman Catholic] clergy.
Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven"

- Martin Luther

Salvation is not an event.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying that God's salvation works on sliding scale for different people is a complete affront to the gospel message and the character of God.

---

I mean the Bible outright says that much is expected from whose to whom much is given. Again, it all comes back to your misunderstanding what salvation is. No one is perfect except Christ.

"This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the [Roman Catholic] clergy.
Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven"

- Martin Luther

Salvation is not an event.

---

So does "to whom much is given, much is required" talking about their salvation? Are you saying God DOES work on a sliding scale for different people with regard to their salvation?

Salvation is most certainly an event. It's the event when one who was once doomed to eternal separation from God is united with Him forever through Jesus. If you're saying it's some sort of long-term process, then you're saying someone who believes and puts their trust in Jesus can still go to Hell because they didn't complete some sort of performative action. That is most certainly NOT the Gospel.

Quote:

---

Salvation is most certainly an event. It's the event when one who was once doomed to eternal separation from God is united with Him forever through Jesus.

---

You're conflating reconcilation with salvation. You are united with Him forever through Jesus when you fall asleep in the Lord. Until then, people can - and have - put down their cross and walked away.

Salvation is most certainly not an "event". That false belief combined with OSAS has gone a long way towards the demise of Western Christianity.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Salvation is most certainly an event. It's the event when one who was once doomed to eternal separation from God is united with Him forever through Jesus.

---

You're conflating reconcilation with salvation. You are united with Him forever through Jesus when you fall asleep in the Lord. Until then, people can - and have - put down their cross and walked away.

Salvation is most certainly not an "event". That false belief combined with OSAS has gone a long way towards the demise of Western Christianity.

---

Been a busy weekend, but From your post here it seems you're discussing with someone that believes "OSAS". Even logically I've found that a very dangerous presumption to lean on. A very high stakes game. It also negates basically all the verses that I've been discussing with Mothra (which shall continue as I have time) and also assumes like in John 3:16 that they correctly have concluded that "believes" or "believeth" is saved (OSAS), while missing what that pregnant word actually means, especially in the context of the time it was written.

As a simple current metaphor, there are many many people that believed in Trump. However, if those people only "believed" as the OsAS ascribers understand it, I guarantee they aren't in the cabinet photo today. Imagine believing so hard and never having shown God or your fellow man that you believed in any outward way (work or action) and expecting to be handed the reward of eternal salvation!!!

You wouldn't have even contributed to furthering Jesus' mission on earth having only "believed" (their definition) and not actually done anything.

As one last example, is Judas in heaven? One would presume that he "believed" as they say. Yet his action of turning over the Christ and, probably even worse, committing suicide, would suggest he is where now? Was he OSAS? Maybe they'd argumentar Judas didn't believe with the same strength and fervor that they currently "believe"

Judas certainly heard John 3:16 with the words put in his ears directly from His voice.

???

I've been to many a Protestant service in my day, rocked out with the bands, raised my hands etc, heard a 30-40 min talk and yet it would seem all that really needed to be said was "just believe, just believe" as all the other stuff is unnecessary and does nothing other than potentially temporal rewards from other humans. A fascinating perspective.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Salvation is most certainly an event. It's the event when one who was once doomed to eternal separation from God is united with Him forever through Jesus.

---

You're conflating reconcilation with salvation. You are united with Him forever through Jesus when you fall asleep in the Lord. Until then, people can - and have - put down their cross and walked away.

Salvation is most certainly not an "event". That false belief combined with OSAS has gone a long way towards the demise of Western Christianity.

---

Reconciliation and salvation are the same thing. You are making needless distinctions. You are conflating salvation with glorification.

Anyone who puts down their cross and walks away was never saved. "They went away from us, because they were not of us; if they were of us, they would have stayed with us."

Salvation is an event. When you believe in Jesus and put your trust in him for your salvation, you receive the Holy Spirit. It's at that time we INHERIT our eternal life, and this, our salvation, is SEALED and GUARANTEED:

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesian 1:11-14

The apostle Paul could not say any of this, if we who truly believe in Jesus don't really know if we're saved until we die, and if we are we could lose it along the way.

Thank the Lord that today is the last day of the Joe Biden Presidency. Long, hard 4 years coimimg to an end.

Please take the time to read this post if you haven't yet.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Thank the Lord that today is the last day of the Joe Biden Presidency. Long, hard 4 years coimimg to an end.

---

Amen to that. This must have been what V-E day felt like.

You just need to take Romans 5, John 6, and the whole Bible at face value, not just the parts of it that support your theology.

Nothing in the verses you have cited indicate that salvation is an event or that an individual who, being reconciled to God through Christ's death cannot end the process of salvation.

What do the scriptures say?

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

2nd Peter 2:20-21

That is absolutely a death blow to Salvation is an Event/OSAS theology.

So here's a more comprehensive view that ties it all together.

Salvation is a process, not an event, that is begun by reconciling with God through Christ's death on the cross. It is continued by picking up your cross and following Him as a disciple, participating in the life of Christ. Some put it down and walk away (I don't like the term "losing salvation", as if it is something you accidentally do like misplacing keys). The elect spoken of in scripture are the ones who continued to run their race till they fall asleep in the Lord and are saved. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, evidenced by works (the Book of James, living vs dead faith). These works show our gratitude to God and discipline/train us for the race so we can better fulfill Jesus' command to go and sin no more, but do not justify us in His sight.

This is the Christianity of the first millenium.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

The level of cluelessness in this comment is beyond words.

---

Your clueless about Greek is beyond words. You did not refute me.

---

There's no need to refute a completely irrelevant point. The fact that early Greek was written in all capitals has absolutely nothing to do with the capitalization of the "m" in "mother" by Roman Catholics in today's English when referring to Mary. It's just so bizarre how you think it's actually some kind of a defense or justification. It's just so incoherent a thought that I don't even know where to begin to criticize it.

---

Dear Busy, Life is good. Your faith is beyond reproach so Why try to make someone feel miserable?

Realitybites said:

---

You just need to take Romans 5, John 6, and the whole Bible at face value, not just the parts of it that support your theology.

Nothing in the verses you have cited indicate that salvation is an event or that an individual who, being reconciled to God through Christ's death cannot end the process of salvation.

What do the scriptures say?

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

2nd Peter 2:20-21

That is absolutely a death blow to Salvation is an Event/OSAS theology.

---

That verse in 2 Peter says nothing about being saved and then losing it. Read it carefully. It's saying that those with only "knowledge" of the Lord, not faith in the Lord, are "escaping the pollutions of the world", not that they are escaping eternal separation from God and being saved. It talks about them "knowing the way" of righteousness, but not coming to faith in it.

This verse does not deal any kind of "death blow to anything" other than the belief that just having head knowledge of Jesus is the same thing is faith. The verse is entirely consistent with the belief that those who walk away were never really saved to begin with. In fact, that's what the verse is really saying. Read the entire chapter of 2nd Peter. The entire chapter is about those who are false believers and teachers, not those who were once believers and walked away.

More importantly, this verse does nothing to invalidate what Paul said in Ephesians that I quoted above. You're just calling it a "proof text" without actually dealing with what it said. How can "once saved always saved" not be true, if what Paul said there is true? You're not dealing with that. Instead, you're trying to "proof text" what you want to believe, except that the "proof" you provide isn't actually saying what you think it's saying.

Salvation happens at the moment you believe in Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a SEAL and a GUARANTEE of our inheritance of eternal life through Jesus. That's an event. It's right there in Paul's words in Ephesians 1:11-14.

Realitybites said:

---

So here's a more comprehensive view that ties it all together.

Salvation is a process, not an event, that is begun by reconciling with God through Christ's death on the cross. It is continued by picking up your cross and following Him as a disciple, participating in the life of Christ. Some put it down and walk away (I don't like the term "losing salvation", as if it is something you accidentally do like misplacing keys). The elect spoken of in scripture are the ones who continued to run their race till they fall asleep in the Lord and are saved. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, evidenced by works (the Book of James, living vs dead faith). These works show our gratitude to God and discipline/train us for the race so we can better fulfill Jesus' command to go and sin no more, but do not justify us in His sight.

This is the Christianity of the first millenium.

---

So if it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, but dies right after, is not saved and goes to Hell. That most certainly is NOT the Gospel.

If it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, no matter how long they live, for the rest of their life there is no way for them to know if they ever completed the "process". They might still go to Hell, even while they believed and put their faith in Jesus their whole life. That most certainly is NOT the Gospel.

You are adding the "process" part of salvation, in order to inject works into the salvation equation. We are not made righteous by our works, we are imputed the righteousness of Jesus when we believe in him. That is the true Gospel.

Quote:

---

So if it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, but dies right after, is not saved and goes to Hell.

---

Incorrect.

Quote:

---

If it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, no matter how long they live, for the rest of their life there is no way for them to know if they ever completed the "process".

---

Of course there is. The race is finished when you fall asleep in the Lord.

You cannot lose your Salvation

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

So if it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, but dies right after, is not saved and goes to Hell.

---

Incorrect.

Quote:

---

If it is a process, then someone who comes to believe in Jesus and puts their faith in him for their salvation, no matter how long they live, for the rest of their life there is no way for them to know if they ever completed the "process".

---

Of course there is. The race is finished when you fall asleep in the Lord.

---

You are contradicting yourself. If someone dies right after they believe in Jesus, and they go to Heaven, then it means there isn't any "process".

And If death is the point at which the "process" is complete, no matter how much of it was actually completed, then your whole concept of "process" is meaningless.

Why would God create a human knowing from birth that they would go to hell?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're literally agreeing with me that people were allowed to pay money to the Church to avoid or lessen time in "purgatory". As if calling it "charitable act" in the form of giving money makes that any less different. You're STILL saying that a money transaction can save someone from punishment after death. It's remarkable how much denial you're in. It's both astounding and sad to watch.

---

No sadly, you are twisting what both indulgences and purgatory actually are.

You are also showing why the Council of Trent put out reforms (the True Reformation) to eliminate the potential for abuse and misunderstandings that were happening in certain areas.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

---

But see, the one who will not accept the truth when presented, is the one who starts talking about the Fatima message being "all about Jesus', then when clearly shown that it is not, he/she diverts to a bible verse where it's all about Jesus.

I mean, it's like you think people don't see this. Then you turn around and say that I'M the one who is "entrenched in their beliefs". It's absolutely remarkable, the level of defense mechanisms that get employed when people have cognitive dissonance.

---

No, the messages of Fatima all point to Jesus thru Mary.

Anyone can bring us to Jesus. Like most of us, I would guess that your parents brought you to church. They brought you to Jesus.

In Fatima, Mary is another agent bringing us to Jesus.

Why does the moon shine? Because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of her Son.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I have this dream where I make it to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter punches some things into his Firepad. All of a sudden, a printer cranks up and starts printing hundreds of pages. When the printer stops thirty minutes later, St. Peter says, "Jim, it appears that you have sinned. You have been less than righteous and have tasted the forbidden fruit on numerous occasions." My response is short and concise. I say , "Yep." Then I wake up.

---

JUST 30 MINUTES????

You're getting in, Bro!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using a word in different senses is equivocation defined.

In my syllogism, all three terms have consistent meanings (or "senses").

And I'm not arguing what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm arguing that what they're teaching is false.

---

AND you would be disagreeing with what has been taught consistently (documented) since the 2nd century and what is documented in the bible - Luke 1:43.

All because it doesn't fit what you've been trained to believe.

How can you blatantly go against 2000 years of well-documented tradition?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What I presented IS a syllogism organized as a transitive proposition:

God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not have Mary as mother.
Therefore, God does not have Mary as mother, i.e. Mary is not the mother of God.

And you just demonstrated to a tee that it's Catholic teaching that is the one that's equivocating by their different meanings of being "mother" to.

---

Once again you show your flawed logic, because the Son does have a mother.

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is an example Of a Pope exhibiting Anti-Pope tendencies. Potentially the enemy within. Hmmm

Pope Francis to children in Singapore: "All religions are paths to reach God. They are-to make a comparison-like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone. If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God."

W t h?!?!?

---

First, I am NOT a Francis apologist. While many of his statements and writing have been ambiguous to say the least (and Bishops and priests have twisted them to their destruction), he has been very firm on Satan, abortion, and other topics.

I eagerly await his passing so that we can get a new pope, hopefully a very conservative one from Africa.

Having said that, please understand the context in which he was speaking to the young people (teens, etc.)

He, since the beginning of his pontificate, he as always stressed evangelization. He had a prepared speech he was about to give when he put it aside (and speak 'off the cuff' to better connect with the young people).

He's talking about the proper way to do inter-religious dialogue. He's trying to counsel people against having fights when they're doing religious dialogue. He is NOT making a general statement about the topic.

He doesn't say all religions lead to God. He said all religions are paths to God. He's not saying that all religions are equal or they are the same or even it doesn't matter what religion you are.

He's simply encouraging Christians to not fight with others about God in the spirit of evangelization.