Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to be astonishing, how professed Christians can possibly think that it's okay to call a created being "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Watching you twist yourself to justify it is simply unbelievable. To even DARE calling anyone but God that, is just a bridge that true Christians do not cross, and it is clearly evident as to why you're doing it - Mary is your God. You can deny this with your mouth in front of God all you want, but your heart and your actions speak otherwise. There just isn't ANY reason to even cross that line, not even come CLOSE to it, if you truly love God. This is pretty much checkmate. I say without any reservation whatsoever that if you can not see that this is pure EVIL, then you are NOT a Christian. PERIOD.

The comparison to Planned Parenthood is apt. They severely limit the definitions of "human life" and "murder" in order to get around the fact that it is exactly what they're doing. You're doing the exact same thing with the concept of "worship". You don't have to be saying someone is "God" in order to be worshiping them. You don't have to consider something as "Creator" or "Savior" to be worshiping them. The Roman Catholic Church is merely creating a very narrow definition of worship to get around the idolatry. It's pure semantics, and the belief that any of this fools God is utterly laughable. Again, it will never cease to astonish me how you have gaslit yourself in buying into all this.

Think about what you're saying - you're saying that someone can "adore", let's say Baal, by bowing to, praying to, and kissing his statue, while also singing songs to him and holding festivals for him, and by calling him "sovereign", "ruler of my house", and "THE ALL HOLY ONE"..... but as long as one does not "adore" him as "Creator" or "Savior", then it isn't worship??!! Does this even remotely make any sense??

---

Nope.

You choose to not understand. We've explained (many times) and you don't want to listen and you obviously don't understand what true worship is.

All the Catholics on this post fully understand the difference. Heck, I'd dare say that some of the non-Catholics understand the difference at this point.

At this impasse, all we can do is to agree to disagree. I hope that exchange doesn't stop you for loving Mary. She's our mother. We should all love her.

Peace.

---

So then, answer the question - can I "adore" Baal, by praying to, bowing to, and kissing his statue, and sing songs to him in church, and keeping pictures and statues of him all over my house, and holding multiple festivals for him... and calling him "sovereign", "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "salvation of the universe", and saying to him "I give you my heart and my soul" and "I place my salvation in your hands"... and say that he is THE ALL HOLY ONE....

and all of this is NOT WORSHIP, because I didn't adore him as "Creator" or "Savior"?? And so God would be okay with all that??

I think you've shown that you've lost all grip on reality.

---

Is Baal a real person or an entity that people believe is God?

---

Does that even matter? Insert any name in there you want, and answer the question: Is it worship? Is God okay with it?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Yet not all of us will agree even on that.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I'm not saying that Jesus is saying that believers won't be judged AT ALL (believers' works will be judged to determine their rewards). I'm saying that Jesus is saying that believers will not be judged to determine their salvation. Reread it. This is completely consistent with the Greek - if believers will not be "condemned", it means they won't be sent to Hell, regardless of their works or lack thereof. This completely contradicts the view that if our works aren't up to par with our faith, that we won't be saved.

---

So then a believer with a sex addiction, who comments serial adultery will not be judged and go straight to heaven?

Or an ultra rich believer who uses people to make even more money will not be judged and they go straight to heaven?

---

If they truly believe and trust in Jesus, then yes. Just like the sinful woman in Luke 7: "Your faith has saved you".

The question is, is it true faith if they continue to do those things you mention without any degree of remorse or repentance? No, I do not believe so. But only Jesus really knows the heart.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) this view, that one must have a certain amount of works (in the book of life) that reflect your faith in order to be saved, will ultimately cause believers to ask this question - "have I DONE enough to be saved?" - thus putting the focus and dependence on one's own merit and accomplishments for one's salvation rather than on the completed work of Jesus that has been credited to you as a free gift, that you received by faith. It is ultimately a works-based gospel. This would eliminate any assurance of salvation, which the Bible clearly teaches we can have (1 John 5:13). And it is a contrary (false) gospel to the one the apostle Paul preached.

---

100% correct.

Though I'm not sure it's very relevant since no one on this thread believes anything remotely like that.

---

It's exactly the belief that was stated.

The view was expressed that if a person's works in the book of life (which is not what that book will be used for) does not match their stated belief, then that person will "have issues". Whether you or others want to admit it or not, this view is clearly suggesting that one's works will play a role in qualifying one's faith for salvation. Thus, it would, in the minds of believers, ultimately place the focus on what one has to DO to validate their faith, which effectively is no different than saying the outcome of their salvation will be decided by their works. There can never be any assurance of salvation with this view, as there is no way to ever know what the "acceptable" level is where one's works adequately validates one's faith.

---

No, that is not an accurate statement of Catholic beliefs.

---

I didn't say these were Catholic beliefs. Please keep up.

---

Then to whom are you attributing them?

---

That was BUDOS' view.

Do you believe Mary is THE ALL HOLY ONE?

---

His view was that salvation depends on what's written in the Book of Life. Catholics believe this also. I don't know anyone who believes there's any quota of good works that one must do.

I haven't heard the expression "all holy one" before, but I assume it refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was perfected in grace while on earth. Likewise all of us hope to be made perfect in heaven. It's essentially the same thing.

---

His view was exactly what I said. You said that Catholics don't believe that. You clearly have not followed the discussion enough to be making declarations about it.

If your view is that one's works plays a part in obtaining one's salvation, then it follows that a certain "quota" or cutoff point must exist, whether you acknowledge that or not. It's the logical consequence of this view.

Mary as "THE ALL HOLY ONE" is straight from your catechism. Being perfected in grace doesn't make anyone The All Holy One. When we go to heaven and are perfected, we aren't going to be The All Holy One either. Do you not recognize who THE ALL HOLY ONE is?? My God - what is missing in Roman Catholic's minds, that makes them completely unable to recognize the pure heresy and idolatry in calling anyone other than GOD that?

---

It is most certainly not a Catholic belief or a logical consequence of our views.

---

Any time you add your works or performance to God's salvation (which Roman Catholicism surely does), then it necessarily follows that there exists a certain minimum level of your performance that is required for your salvation. The level can not be zero, and it can't be infinity. Therefore it is somewhere in between. This is just basic logic.

---

Damnation is earned. Salvation is a free gift...but not an entitlement. We must accept it every day for as long as we live. How long that is, or how many good deeds we have time to accumulate, is beside the point.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, the times when there were people here actually trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh language - no one says a word about it; however, the charge of trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh tone only seems to arise when one's view is being seriously challenged, and the only way out of it is to redirect the fault to the other guy in order to avoid actually having to address the issue, by making their perceived faults the issue. It's a game that's played over and over in this forum. And there can't really be anything productive from this, can there? Watching people in this forum trying to manipulate the narrative in order to steer away from the really vital issues and questions and to marginalize the ones bringing it up is really sad. Truth is never served this way.

---

More irony from the chief Pharisee. lol.

---

There it is! The "Pharisee" moniker to conveniently avoid the debate because they have no argument against anything I've said.

Not surprising coming from an empty vessel who can only resort to cursing and nastiness because they simply can't debate.

You're plain evil, you can't help it. You've demonstrated that time and again. Go find someone else to curse at - only biblically sound, factual, and logical arguments will be engaged here.

---

Empty words from the resident Chief Hypocrite who does exactly all the things you've just enumerated. You should just own it. At least that would be the honest thing to do..

---

You provide absolutely ZERO to the discussion except to hurl your hatred. Your insults are your cover for your inadequacies.

Clang on, empty vessel. And thanks again for reading every single word I write.

---

Clang on in your stupidity thinking I read every single word you write. Are you a moron, a liar, or a moronic liar?

---

We're already aware of the highest level of intellect you're capable of - calling other people names. You don't have to keep demonstrating it. You're only living up to your empty vessel moniker. But clang on, if that floats your boat. We're having tense conversations here, so we might need the occasional comic relief.

---

Ah, your brand of vitriol is supported by Holy Scripture (or, so you claim) so that makes it Godly. Got it. Whatever floats your boat indeed. Pure comic genius on your part, Son of Satan.

---

You defend "Mary is THE HOLY ONE", and with hatred and vitriol.

What more needs to be said? You're evil. Calling someone "Son of Satan" is the biggest projection anyone's ever witnessed.

Clang on, empty vessel.

---

The most evil one here is you in your constant attacks on the body and bride of Christ. Res ipsa loquitur. You can count on me to drop by here from time to time to remind you of your shameful behavior. I pray you will eventually come to see the error of your ways and repent.

---

If it isn't crystal clear to you that we should never place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, or believe MARY is THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you aren't in the body of Christ. Period. Simple as that.

You ARE, though, defending a certain body with all your attacks on me and what I'm saying. It's just not the body that you think.

---

Show us where Roman Catholics define salvation as being in and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you seriously think anyone here holds to that? Typical straw man from you.

---

Here is more:

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." (Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, 9)


How's the "straw man" lookin'? Still need more? Typical ignorant comment from you.

---

Typical logic fail from you; notice the conjunction in "in and through". Nothing you quote claims salvation is both in and through. There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin Mary may provide a pathway to her Son for some or many. You are blind and/or lying.

---

Do you REALLY think that saying "NO ONE attains salvation EXCEPT THROUGH MARY", "NO MAN goes to Christ BUT BY HIS MOTHER", and "Mary's intercession is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION" is effectvely any different than saying that salvation is both "in and through" her??

Do you REALLY think you've made a semantic technicality that makes this outright heresy and idolatry okay with God??

You might be the most blind, delusional person I've ever encountered. Even the idolatrous Roman Catholics here weren't stupid enough to try this absolutlely laughable argument.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, the times when there were people here actually trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh language - no one says a word about it; however, the charge of trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh tone only seems to arise when one's view is being seriously challenged, and the only way out of it is to redirect the fault to the other guy in order to avoid actually having to address the issue, by making their perceived faults the issue. It's a game that's played over and over in this forum. And there can't really be anything productive from this, can there? Watching people in this forum trying to manipulate the narrative in order to steer away from the really vital issues and questions and to marginalize the ones bringing it up is really sad. Truth is never served this way.

---

More irony from the chief Pharisee. lol.

---

There it is! The "Pharisee" moniker to conveniently avoid the debate because they have no argument against anything I've said.

Not surprising coming from an empty vessel who can only resort to cursing and nastiness because they simply can't debate.

You're plain evil, you can't help it. You've demonstrated that time and again. Go find someone else to curse at - only biblically sound, factual, and logical arguments will be engaged here.

---

Empty words from the resident Chief Hypocrite who does exactly all the things you've just enumerated. You should just own it. At least that would be the honest thing to do..

---

You provide absolutely ZERO to the discussion except to hurl your hatred. Your insults are your cover for your inadequacies.

Clang on, empty vessel. And thanks again for reading every single word I write.

---

Clang on in your stupidity thinking I read every single word you write. Are you a moron, a liar, or a moronic liar?

---

We're already aware of the highest level of intellect you're capable of - calling other people names. You don't have to keep demonstrating it. You're only living up to your empty vessel moniker. But clang on, if that floats your boat. We're having tense conversations here, so we might need the occasional comic relief.

---

Ah, your brand of vitriol is supported by Holy Scripture (or, so you claim) so that makes it Godly. Got it. Whatever floats your boat indeed. Pure comic genius on your part, Son of Satan.

---

You defend "Mary is THE HOLY ONE", and with hatred and vitriol.

What more needs to be said? You're evil. Calling someone "Son of Satan" is the biggest projection anyone's ever witnessed.

Clang on, empty vessel.

---

The most evil one here is you in your constant attacks on the body and bride of Christ. Res ipsa loquitur. You can count on me to drop by here from time to time to remind you of your shameful behavior. I pray you will eventually come to see the error of your ways and repent.

---

If it isn't crystal clear to you that we should never place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, or believe MARY is THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you aren't in the body of Christ. Period. Simple as that.

You ARE, though, defending a certain body with all your attacks on me and what I'm saying. It's just not the body that you think.

---

Show us where Roman Catholics define salvation as being in and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you seriously think anyone here holds to that? Typical straw man from you.

---

How they "define" it doesn't necessarily indicate what they believe, say, and do. They will officially define it as being through Jesus.... but that to get to Jesus you go through Mary. I've shown you guys over and over and over all the problematic quotes/prayers/catechisms. If you didn't believe me then, what makes you think you'll believe me now? You'll just go through another round of your vitriolic hate. It's clear what the spirit is that's behind you. If you don't recognize the utter heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry in calling a created being like Mary THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you are from the Devil. Likewise if you defend it.

---

You should note the Orthodox Church also refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the All Holy One. Guess they are Hell bound in your system, too.

For your reference from the RC Catechism:
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."[512]

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men … flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."[513] "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Keep making Satan proud of you, buddy.

---

Aside from the fact that NONE of the above is biblical, you're only demonstrating what I said: the Roman Catholic Church says one thing, but does and believes otherwise. They've fooled you into thinking that it's all about Jesus for them, but really it's all about MARY in order to get to Jesus, thus making salvation go through Mary. Actually, these very catechisms you're posting proves it. This is the belief that prompts POPES to say things like "Mary is the road we must travel to get to God". It is rank heresy and idolatry, and it's pure evil, and apparently this evil message and its evil source has found its zealous proselytizer in you.

Do you REALLY think anything you're posting here erases all the quotes I provided?? Even a moron can see what I'm saying is true.

You're defending this outright heresy and idolatry, and I'm the one calling it out - yet I'm the one who's making Satan proud, rrririgggghhht. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" - Isaiah 5:20

You are completely bewitched, delusional, and evil. I'm actually glad you're exposing yourself for the forum to see. It's only strengthening my position, the fact that you continue to attack me. Satan hates the truth.

So often we discuss the same verses so different.
Perhaps some of us need to allow a bit more understanding, especially if it is not an obvious salvation issue.

Even when two individuals are exposed to the exact same content, their interpretation of that content can vary significantly due to a multitude of factors related to their unique experiences, brains, and psychological makeup.

Key reasons for differences in content interpretation include
Prior Knowledge and Experiences: Every individual possesses a unique collection of past experiences, learned information, and established beliefs that act as a filter through which new information is processed and understood. This framework of understanding influences how they select, remember, and value specific details within the content they encounter.

Emotional State and Biases: Emotions can strongly affect how information is perceived and recalled. For instance, a person in a low mood may exhibit a negative bias in recalling information, while someone experiencing anxiety or depression might be prone to filling information gaps with negative or worrisome thoughts. Additionally, self-serving bias, the tendency to interpret information in ways that align with one's own agenda or make oneself look good, can also play a role in differing interpretations.

Individual Differences in Brain Function and Processing: Research suggests that individuals have different brain wiring related to how they access and process information, which can influence how they naturally approach the act of retrieval and thus, how they interpret content.

Cognitive Biases: These are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment. Examples include confirmation bias, where people tend to favor information confirming their existing beliefs, and selective attention, which influences which details are noticed and prioritized.

Context and Environment: The environment and cultural background in which a person is situated can also have a significant influence on how a message or content is interpreted.

It's important to recognize that different interpretations are often a natural consequence of the complex and individual ways in which human beings perceive and process information. Understanding these factors can help to foster empathy and facilitate more effective communication.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) this view, that one must have a certain amount of works (in the book of life) that reflect your faith in order to be saved, will ultimately cause believers to ask this question - "have I DONE enough to be saved?" - thus putting the focus and dependence on one's own merit and accomplishments for one's salvation rather than on the completed work of Jesus that has been credited to you as a free gift, that you received by faith. It is ultimately a works-based gospel. This would eliminate any assurance of salvation, which the Bible clearly teaches we can have (1 John 5:13). And it is a contrary (false) gospel to the one the apostle Paul preached.

---

100% correct.

Though I'm not sure it's very relevant since no one on this thread believes anything remotely like that.

---

It's exactly the belief that was stated.

The view was expressed that if a person's works in the book of life (which is not what that book will be used for) does not match their stated belief, then that person will "have issues". Whether you or others want to admit it or not, this view is clearly suggesting that one's works will play a role in qualifying one's faith for salvation. Thus, it would, in the minds of believers, ultimately place the focus on what one has to DO to validate their faith, which effectively is no different than saying the outcome of their salvation will be decided by their works. There can never be any assurance of salvation with this view, as there is no way to ever know what the "acceptable" level is where one's works adequately validates one's faith.

---

No, that is not an accurate statement of Catholic beliefs.

---

I didn't say these were Catholic beliefs. Please keep up.

---

Then to whom are you attributing them?

---

That was BUDOS' view.

Do you believe Mary is THE ALL HOLY ONE?

---

His view was that salvation depends on what's written in the Book of Life. Catholics believe this also. I don't know anyone who believes there's any quota of good works that one must do.

I haven't heard the expression "all holy one" before, but I assume it refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was perfected in grace while on earth. Likewise all of us hope to be made perfect in heaven. It's essentially the same thing.

---

His view was exactly what I said. You said that Catholics don't believe that. You clearly have not followed the discussion enough to be making declarations about it.

If your view is that one's works plays a part in obtaining one's salvation, then it follows that a certain "quota" or cutoff point must exist, whether you acknowledge that or not. It's the logical consequence of this view.

Mary as "THE ALL HOLY ONE" is straight from your catechism. Being perfected in grace doesn't make anyone The All Holy One. When we go to heaven and are perfected, we aren't going to be The All Holy One either. Do you not recognize who THE ALL HOLY ONE is?? My God - what is missing in Roman Catholic's minds, that makes them completely unable to recognize the pure heresy and idolatry in calling anyone other than GOD that?

---

It is most certainly not a Catholic belief or a logical consequence of our views.

---

Any time you add your works or performance to God's salvation (which Roman Catholicism surely does), then it necessarily follows that there exists a certain minimum level of your performance that is required for your salvation. The level can not be zero, and it can't be infinity. Therefore it is somewhere in between. This is just basic logic.

---

Damnation is earned. Salvation is a free gift...but not an entitlement. We must accept it every day for as long as we live. How long that is, or how many good deeds we have time to accumulate, is beside the point.

---

It isn't beside the point in Roman Catholicism - there are certain things you MUST perform in order to be saved. Whatever your church wants to include in that list (sacraments, baptism, Eucharist, confession, avoiding mortal sins, etc), that is the level of works/performance you must obtain.

But again, this is where Roman Catholics will say that those things are NOT necessary - which is complete double talk.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, the times when there were people here actually trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh language - no one says a word about it; however, the charge of trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh tone only seems to arise when one's view is being seriously challenged, and the only way out of it is to redirect the fault to the other guy in order to avoid actually having to address the issue, by making their perceived faults the issue. It's a game that's played over and over in this forum. And there can't really be anything productive from this, can there? Watching people in this forum trying to manipulate the narrative in order to steer away from the really vital issues and questions and to marginalize the ones bringing it up is really sad. Truth is never served this way.

---

More irony from the chief Pharisee. lol.

---

There it is! The "Pharisee" moniker to conveniently avoid the debate because they have no argument against anything I've said.

Not surprising coming from an empty vessel who can only resort to cursing and nastiness because they simply can't debate.

You're plain evil, you can't help it. You've demonstrated that time and again. Go find someone else to curse at - only biblically sound, factual, and logical arguments will be engaged here.

---

Empty words from the resident Chief Hypocrite who does exactly all the things you've just enumerated. You should just own it. At least that would be the honest thing to do..

---

You provide absolutely ZERO to the discussion except to hurl your hatred. Your insults are your cover for your inadequacies.

Clang on, empty vessel. And thanks again for reading every single word I write.

---

Clang on in your stupidity thinking I read every single word you write. Are you a moron, a liar, or a moronic liar?

---

We're already aware of the highest level of intellect you're capable of - calling other people names. You don't have to keep demonstrating it. You're only living up to your empty vessel moniker. But clang on, if that floats your boat. We're having tense conversations here, so we might need the occasional comic relief.

---

Ah, your brand of vitriol is supported by Holy Scripture (or, so you claim) so that makes it Godly. Got it. Whatever floats your boat indeed. Pure comic genius on your part, Son of Satan.

---

You defend "Mary is THE HOLY ONE", and with hatred and vitriol.

What more needs to be said? You're evil. Calling someone "Son of Satan" is the biggest projection anyone's ever witnessed.

Clang on, empty vessel.

---

The most evil one here is you in your constant attacks on the body and bride of Christ. Res ipsa loquitur. You can count on me to drop by here from time to time to remind you of your shameful behavior. I pray you will eventually come to see the error of your ways and repent.

---

If it isn't crystal clear to you that we should never place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, or believe MARY is THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you aren't in the body of Christ. Period. Simple as that.

You ARE, though, defending a certain body with all your attacks on me and what I'm saying. It's just not the body that you think.

---

Show us where Roman Catholics define salvation as being in and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you seriously think anyone here holds to that? Typical straw man from you.

---

Here is more:

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." (Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, 9)


How's the "straw man" lookin'? Still need more? Typical ignorant comment from you.

---

Typical logic fail from you; notice the conjunction in "in and through". Nothing you quote claims salvation is both in and through. There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin Mary may provide a pathway to her Son for some or many. You are blind and/or lying.

---

Mary is a good woman, but she can't provide anything for us. Only Jesus Christ can. The path to Jesus Christ is Faith in Him and His death and resurrection, His shed blood as the sacrifice, payment for our sins.

---

Finally, another protestant Christian speaking up about this. I've been wondering where you guys are at. We have some protestant cowards here afraid to speak the truth, that's for sure.

BUDOS said:

---

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Yet not all of us will agree even on that.

---

Do you agree that all those quotes I provided saying that salvation is through Mary is heresy and idolatry?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) this view, that one must have a certain amount of works (in the book of life) that reflect your faith in order to be saved, will ultimately cause believers to ask this question - "have I DONE enough to be saved?" - thus putting the focus and dependence on one's own merit and accomplishments for one's salvation rather than on the completed work of Jesus that has been credited to you as a free gift, that you received by faith. It is ultimately a works-based gospel. This would eliminate any assurance of salvation, which the Bible clearly teaches we can have (1 John 5:13). And it is a contrary (false) gospel to the one the apostle Paul preached.

---

100% correct.

Though I'm not sure it's very relevant since no one on this thread believes anything remotely like that.

---

It's exactly the belief that was stated.

The view was expressed that if a person's works in the book of life (which is not what that book will be used for) does not match their stated belief, then that person will "have issues". Whether you or others want to admit it or not, this view is clearly suggesting that one's works will play a role in qualifying one's faith for salvation. Thus, it would, in the minds of believers, ultimately place the focus on what one has to DO to validate their faith, which effectively is no different than saying the outcome of their salvation will be decided by their works. There can never be any assurance of salvation with this view, as there is no way to ever know what the "acceptable" level is where one's works adequately validates one's faith.

---

No, that is not an accurate statement of Catholic beliefs.

---

I didn't say these were Catholic beliefs. Please keep up.

---

Then to whom are you attributing them?

---

That was BUDOS' view.

Do you believe Mary is THE ALL HOLY ONE?

---

His view was that salvation depends on what's written in the Book of Life. Catholics believe this also. I don't know anyone who believes there's any quota of good works that one must do.

I haven't heard the expression "all holy one" before, but I assume it refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was perfected in grace while on earth. Likewise all of us hope to be made perfect in heaven. It's essentially the same thing.

---

His view was exactly what I said. You said that Catholics don't believe that. You clearly have not followed the discussion enough to be making declarations about it.

If your view is that one's works plays a part in obtaining one's salvation, then it follows that a certain "quota" or cutoff point must exist, whether you acknowledge that or not. It's the logical consequence of this view.

Mary as "THE ALL HOLY ONE" is straight from your catechism. Being perfected in grace doesn't make anyone The All Holy One. When we go to heaven and are perfected, we aren't going to be The All Holy One either. Do you not recognize who THE ALL HOLY ONE is?? My God - what is missing in Roman Catholic's minds, that makes them completely unable to recognize the pure heresy and idolatry in calling anyone other than GOD that?

---

It is most certainly not a Catholic belief or a logical consequence of our views.

---

Any time you add your works or performance to God's salvation (which Roman Catholicism surely does), then it necessarily follows that there exists a certain minimum level of your performance that is required for your salvation. The level can not be zero, and it can't be infinity. Therefore it is somewhere in between. This is just basic logic.

---

Damnation is earned. Salvation is a free gift...but not an entitlement. We must accept it every day for as long as we live. How long that is, or how many good deeds we have time to accumulate, is beside the point.

---

It isn't beside the point in Roman Catholicism - there are certain things you MUST perform in order to be saved. Whatever your church wants to include in that list (sacraments, baptism, Eucharist, confession, avoiding mortal sins, etc), that is the level of works/performance you must obtain.

But again, this is where Roman Catholics will say that those things are NOT necessary - which is complete double talk.

---

If you ever want to argue about what Catholics actually believe and why it's wrong, I'm more than willing to hear. I see no point in arguing about what you wish Catholics believed even if they don't.

Instead of explaining again why Catholics don't believe there's any quota of good works, and in the interest of good faith discussion, I would suggest that you explain it to me. Once we have the same understanding, we'll have a better basis on which to agree or disagree.

Seems i hadnt missed much. Carry on

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) this view, that one must have a certain amount of works (in the book of life) that reflect your faith in order to be saved, will ultimately cause believers to ask this question - "have I DONE enough to be saved?" - thus putting the focus and dependence on one's own merit and accomplishments for one's salvation rather than on the completed work of Jesus that has been credited to you as a free gift, that you received by faith. It is ultimately a works-based gospel. This would eliminate any assurance of salvation, which the Bible clearly teaches we can have (1 John 5:13). And it is a contrary (false) gospel to the one the apostle Paul preached.

---

100% correct.

Though I'm not sure it's very relevant since no one on this thread believes anything remotely like that.

---

It's exactly the belief that was stated.

The view was expressed that if a person's works in the book of life (which is not what that book will be used for) does not match their stated belief, then that person will "have issues". Whether you or others want to admit it or not, this view is clearly suggesting that one's works will play a role in qualifying one's faith for salvation. Thus, it would, in the minds of believers, ultimately place the focus on what one has to DO to validate their faith, which effectively is no different than saying the outcome of their salvation will be decided by their works. There can never be any assurance of salvation with this view, as there is no way to ever know what the "acceptable" level is where one's works adequately validates one's faith.

---

No, that is not an accurate statement of Catholic beliefs.

---

I didn't say these were Catholic beliefs. Please keep up.

---

Then to whom are you attributing them?

---

That was BUDOS' view.

Do you believe Mary is THE ALL HOLY ONE?

---

His view was that salvation depends on what's written in the Book of Life. Catholics believe this also. I don't know anyone who believes there's any quota of good works that one must do.

I haven't heard the expression "all holy one" before, but I assume it refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was perfected in grace while on earth. Likewise all of us hope to be made perfect in heaven. It's essentially the same thing.

---

His view was exactly what I said. You said that Catholics don't believe that. You clearly have not followed the discussion enough to be making declarations about it.

If your view is that one's works plays a part in obtaining one's salvation, then it follows that a certain "quota" or cutoff point must exist, whether you acknowledge that or not. It's the logical consequence of this view.

Mary as "THE ALL HOLY ONE" is straight from your catechism. Being perfected in grace doesn't make anyone The All Holy One. When we go to heaven and are perfected, we aren't going to be The All Holy One either. Do you not recognize who THE ALL HOLY ONE is?? My God - what is missing in Roman Catholic's minds, that makes them completely unable to recognize the pure heresy and idolatry in calling anyone other than GOD that?

---

It is most certainly not a Catholic belief or a logical consequence of our views.

---

Any time you add your works or performance to God's salvation (which Roman Catholicism surely does), then it necessarily follows that there exists a certain minimum level of your performance that is required for your salvation. The level can not be zero, and it can't be infinity. Therefore it is somewhere in between. This is just basic logic.

---

Damnation is earned. Salvation is a free gift...but not an entitlement. We must accept it every day for as long as we live. How long that is, or how many good deeds we have time to accumulate, is beside the point.

---

It isn't beside the point in Roman Catholicism - there are certain things you MUST perform in order to be saved. Whatever your church wants to include in that list (sacraments, baptism, Eucharist, confession, avoiding mortal sins, etc), that is the level of works/performance you must obtain.

But again, this is where Roman Catholics will say that those things are NOT necessary - which is complete double talk.

---

If you ever want to argue about what Catholics actually believe and why it's wrong, I'm more than willing to hear. I see no point in arguing about what you wish Catholics believed even if they don't.

Instead of explaining again why Catholics don't believe there's any quota of good works, and in the interest of good faith discussion, I would suggest that you explain it to me. Once we have the same understanding, we'll have a better basis on which to agree or disagree.

---

We can't have a honest discussion if you're going to deny it's what Catholics believe, when I'm giving you the evidence from Catholics and Catholic sources that it's what Catholics believe. When the Roman Catholic cathechism directly states that "sacraments are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION", I don't understand how you can say that Roman Catholics don't believe that sacraments are necessary for salvation. That is a Jedi-level form of gas lighting - "these aren't the droids you're looking for". Even Roman Catholics in this thread like CokeBear has stated this belief, though he only really mentioned water baptism, avoiding mortal sins, and maybe the Eucharist. Whatever the performative requirements, that is your minimum quota for salvation. You may object to the term, but that's what it is in concept. I really don't understand why you are having a hard time understanding this.

Why don't you tell me what Roman Catholicism says one must do to be saved, then we'll see if I'm wrong.

For the record, in Orthodoxy we do not refer to Mary as All Holy with the literal English meaning of that term being currently discussed.

The titles for Mary in Orthodoxy refer very carefully to what she did more than who she was:

(1) Most commonly, the Theotokos, or she who bore the Theanthropos (Jesus, the god-man)

(2) Less commonly, the Panagia, or the ultimate example of the cooperation of between God and Man as seen in Luke 1:38

We don't even really call her by her name most of the time.

Anything that uses the term All Holy in an English translation of Orthodox liturgy or other commentary is adding something never intended in the original language.

In our liturgy from 400 AD, we chant "There is one who is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father, Amen" so there can be no confusion on the matter. Whatever flashes of holiness we may occasionally display are only a result of our communion with He who is holy and His Holy Spirit dwelling in us. This is as true for Mary the mother of Jesus and the rest of the great cloud of witnesses as it is for us.

I do not know if modern Roman Catholics share this view after their adoption of the doctrine of the immaculate conception in 1854. That innovation may predispose them to assign a meaning when they say All Holy Mary that we do not.

Anyone who is interested in how the original church viewed the falling away of Roman patriarchate may be interested in this two volume set:

Realitybites said:

---

For the record, in Orthodoxy we do not refer to Mary as All Holy with the literal English meaning of that term being currently discussed.

The titles for Mary in Orthodoxy refer very carefully to what she did more than who she was:

(1) Most commonly, the Theotokos, or she who bore the Theanthropos (Jesus, the god-man)

(2) Less commonly, the Panagia, or the ultimate example of the cooperation of between God and Man as seen in Luke 1:38

We don't even really call her by her name most of the time.

Anything that uses the term All Holy in an English translation of Orthodox liturgy or other commentary is adding something never intended in the original language.

In our liturgy from 400 AD, we chant "There is one who is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father, Amen" so there can be no confusion on the matter. Whatever flashes of holiness we may occasionally display are only a result of our communion with He who is holy and His Holy Spirit dwelling in us. This is as true for Mary the mother of Jesus and the rest of the great cloud of witnesses as it is for us.

I do not know if modern Roman Catholics share this view after their adoption of the doctrine of the immaculate conception in 1854. That innovation may predispose them to assign a meaning when they say All Holy Mary that we do not.

---

The predisposition of Roman Catholics to call Mary THE ALL HOLY ONE far, far precedes their *dogma, not doctrine (important difference), of the immaculate conception made in the 19th century. This rank heresy and idolatry is the result of slow accretion of unscriptural ideas, ideas that are completely absent in Scripture and the apostolic church age, one bad idea built upon another through the centuries, with one of the major milestones being what you're citing here - the declaration made in the 5th century that Mary is the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). This was one of the worst mistakes ever made in the history of the church. The whole intent of giving her that title was to emphasize JESUS' deity, not to say anything about her. But the fruits of that has been made evident - it has significantly contributed to the deification of Mary, even her usurpation of Jesus.

^^^ This is a prime example of what happens when you abandon sola scriptura. You subject yourself to the whims of fallible man instead of the infallible revelation of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Is Baal a real person or an entity that people believe is God?

---

Does that even matter? Insert any name in there you want, and answer the question: Is it worship? Is God okay with it?

---

You didn't answer the question. This is why you choose not to understand.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If they truly believe and trust in Jesus, then yes. Just like the sinful woman in Luke 7: "Your faith has saved you".

---

I don't see how this is congruent with Gal. 5:19-21 when Paul, writing to the believers in Galatia, warns those who engage in "acts of the flesh" will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Nor in 1 Cor 6:9-10, when Paul lists the behaviors (sexual immorality, idolatry, theft, and greed) "will inherit the kingdom of God." We know they are believers because verses immediately prior to this, Paul is also addressing believers that bring lawsuits against his "brother" in front of unbelievers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question is, is it true faith if they continue to do those things you mention without any degree of remorse or repentance? No, I do not believe so. But only Jesus really knows the heart.

---

How does one know if they are a true believer then? You're system can never fully know if they are saved.

Quote:

---

the declaration made in the 5th century that Mary is the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). This was one of the worst mistakes ever made in the history of the church. The whole intent of giving her that title was to emphasize JESUS' deity

---

That is precisely the reason she is called the Theotokos. Because then, as today, heretical groups were claiming Jesus was a created being or human and not divine. The prediliction of English speakers to append "the Father" to "Mother of God" and thereby create a strawman is on us, not those who spoke Greek.

As far as Sola Scriptura, that has resulted in 20,000 plus interpreations of what that scriptura means so that is not the answer either. Simply declaring yourself the true Scottsman has no meaning unless you measure yourself against Scripture, the interpretation of scripture by the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, and other pre scriptural guides to Christian living like the Didache.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Is Baal a real person or an entity that people believe is God?

---

Does that even matter? Insert any name in there you want, and answer the question: Is it worship? Is God okay with it?

---

You didn't answer the question. This is why you choose not to understand.

---

And you didn't answer MY question, which was first. You "answered" the question with a question. Isn't that indicating you're the one who's choosing to not understand?

Regardless, your question doesn't need an answer, because your question is completely irrelevant. Whether the person being worshiped is real or not, it doesn't have any impact on the answer whatsoever. Real or not, the answer is the exact same. Now insert whichever entity you want, real or unreal, into my original question and let's hear an answer. If you keep avoiding this by playing games, you're not being respectful, thus you're not going to get a respectful reply.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If they truly believe and trust in Jesus, then yes. Just like the sinful woman in Luke 7: "Your faith has saved you".

---

I don't see how this is congruent with Gal. 5:19-21 when Paul, writing to the believers in Galatia, warns those who engage in "acts of the flesh" will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Nor in 1 Cor 6:9-10, when Paul lists the behaviors (sexual immorality, idolatry, theft, and greed) "will inherit the kingdom of God." We know they are believers because verses immediately prior to this, Paul is also addressing believers that bring lawsuits against his "brother" in front of unbelievers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question is, is it true faith if they continue to do those things you mention without any degree of remorse or repentance? No, I do not believe so. But only Jesus really knows the heart.

---

How does one know if they are a true believer then? You're system can never fully know if they are saved.

---

If Paul is saying in Galatians 5:19-21 that anyone who commits sins of the flesh is not saved, then salvation is impossible. Virtually every Christian who has ever lived has commited a sin of the flesh after they became a Christian. Paul would even be excluding himself from the kingdom, because he admits to struggling with sins of the flesh in Romans chapter 7. Obviously, your understanding of these verses isn't correct.

Yes, in "my system" (which is what Scripture teaches), one can know if one is saved - if you know you're putting all your trust in Jesus for your salvation (not on your own works/performance) then you can know you are saved. You can know this, because you CAN know your own heart if you are honest with yourself and pray for guidance. It isn't an unsolvable mystery.

Don't really want to re-open that argument, but you should be aware that your post is itself a strawman argument.


But you did beat up that scarecrow pretty good!

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

the declaration made in the 5th century that Mary is the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). This was one of the worst mistakes ever made in the history of the church. The whole intent of giving her that title was to emphasize JESUS' deity

---

That is precisely the reason she is called the Theotokos. Because then, as today, heretical groups were claiming Jesus was a created being or human and not divine. The prediliction of English speakers to append "the Father" to "Mother of God" and thereby create a strawman is on us, not those who spoke Greek.

As far as Sola Scriptura, that has resulted in 20,000 plus interpreations of what that scriptura means so that is not the answer either. Simply declaring yourself the true Scottsman has no meaning unless you measure yourself against Scripture, the interpretation of scripture by the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, and other pre scriptural guides to Christian living like the Didache.

---

If they wanted to declare Jesus as divine and not merely a created human being, then they should have declared him divine and not a created being. It was bad mistake to use language putting his earthly mother into all that, language that suggests to weak, unprincipled, and even sinful minds that Mary, a created being, was the progenitor of the eternal, Creator God. God has no mother. Mary was the earthly mother to the man Jesus, not the eternal Jesus who existed in all time with God the Father.

Sola scriptura is not an "answer" to anything. It's the starting point, even before the "question". You continue to have an incorrect understanding of what sola scriptura is and means. I'd ask you for what you think the definition of sola scriptura is, but as many times I've asked for this from everyone who has been against it, I've never gotten an answer, so I'm not going to be expecting one here. But one can hope. I just find it odd that the people who want to reject it, they don't even seem to really know what it is they're wanting to reject.

If you think that sola scriptura isn't the answer, and we know that fallible man's tradition clearly isn't... then what, in your mind, is?

Quote:

---

God has no mother.

---

Sure thing, Mohammed.

God the Father has no mother.

God the Son absolutely does.

The church fathers aren't wrong because of your Urban Dictionary characterization of the Trinity.

Much has been written in this thread about "how to get to heaven"/"how we are saved".

It is probably more profitable to begin discussing as important a question:

Why Does God Save Us?

Is it simply a matter of 1st John 4:8 + John 3:16? Or is there more to it than that?

I would argue that there is a great deal more to it than that.

"For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:10

Our salvation has an intent. God saves us so that we can become profitable servants as described in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25) and work so that "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Realitybites said:

---

Much has been written in this thread about "how to get to heaven"/"how we are saved".

It is probably more profitable to begin discussing as important a question:

Why Does God Save Us?

Is it simply a matter of 1st John 4:8 + John 3:16? Or is there more to it than that?

I would argue that there is a great deal more to it than that.

"For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:10

Our salvation has an intent. God saves us so that we can become profitable servants as described in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25) and work so that "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

---

Why?

I'm surprised you have forgotten John 3:16.

God never saved us for profit, or even because some few try to do right.

He loved and loves us, plain and simple.

And yet the biggest, most stunning miracle of them all.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God has no mother.

---

Sure thing, Mohammed.

God the Father has no mother.

God the Son absolutely does.

The church fathers aren't wrong because of your Urban Dictionary characterization of the Trinity.

---

God the Son existed in all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Eternal beings do not have mothers.

There's a reason Jesus NEVER called Mary his "mother" in Scripture.

But for you, tradition >> truth.

Before anyone gets ready to put me on a skewer, read the last part of the post.

It's my opinion that people are saved by faith. Having said that the Bible appears to indicate that individuals will be judged based on their works. Multiple passages, including Revelation 20:12 and 2 Corinthians 5:10, seem to indicate people will be judged according to what they have done. However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation.
This is what I understand, especially in reading Paul's comments on the topic.

"However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation."

Absolutely correct. Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God has no mother.

---

Sure thing, Mohammed.

God the Father has no mother.

God the Son absolutely does.

The church fathers aren't wrong because of your Urban Dictionary characterization of the Trinity.

---

God the Son existed in all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Eternal beings do not have mothers. There's a reason Jesus NEVER called Mary his "mother" in Scripture.

---

Scripture is silent on a whole host of matters. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother, at a very specific time, at a very specific place.

Your arguments are starting to border on the absurdly gnostic.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God has no mother.

---

Sure thing, Mohammed.

God the Father has no mother.

God the Son absolutely does.

The church fathers aren't wrong because of your Urban Dictionary characterization of the Trinity.

---

God the Son existed in all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Eternal beings do not have mothers. There's a reason Jesus NEVER called Mary his "mother" in Scripture.

---

Scripture is silent on a whole host of matters. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother, at a very specific time, at a very specific place.

Your arguments are starting to border on the absurdly gnostic.

---

No Scripture is NOT silent on the matter. I just told you two things that are straight from Scripture.

And if you're going to develop your theology from the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, you're opening yourself to creating beliefs that are totally unsupported in Scripture. Can it be argued that Jesus supported gay marriage? I mean, he was silent on the matter, right? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? Even the Bible says that Jesus did and said many things that were not written down, right? See the problem?

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

"Your arguments are starting to border on the absurdly gnostic" - how so? Let's hear your explanation. There isn't a single thing I said that isn't true, and straight from the Bible. Your charge is highly, highly ironic - Gnosticism involves the "sacred feminine" which pervades the whole system of worship around Mary in Roman Catholicism. You really hit on something here, but not in the way you intended. In Gnosticism, Sophia is the sacred feminine, and she created Yahweh, the God of the Bible - so you might say, in Gnositicism she's the MOTHER OF GOD.

Are your eyes opening?

BUDOS said:

---

Before anyone gets ready to put me on a skewer, read the last part of the post.

It's my opinion that people are saved by faith. Having said that the Bible appears to indicate that individuals will be judged based on their works. Multiple passages, including Revelation 20:12 and 2 Corinthians 5:10, seem to indicate people will be judged according to what they have done. However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation.
This is what I understand, especially in reading Paul's comments on the topic.

---

"....the Bible appears to indicate that individuals will be judged based on their works" - judged for what outcome?

Realitybites said:

---

"However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation."

Absolutely correct. Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works.

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

And how much evidence by works does one need? What's the cutoff point? And how can anyone know that they are saved, as Scripture tells us, if we need a certain level of evidence, a level that we have no idea if we've reached?

These are the questions I have repeated over and over and I never get an answer from anyone. Instead, some have resorted to either "blocking" me, or calling me a "Pharisee", whine about my "tone", or playing avoidance games in order to get out of answering it. And then call ME the sinner for bringing it up and holding them to it. It has been quite the show. It will never cease to amaze me, however, how people don't seem fazed a bit that their belief runs into this big problem, but instead they just keep truckin' on with their belief like nothing happened. People who truly care about what's true wouldn't do this. People who only care about preserving their tradition/long held beliefs/what they want to believe - they do this. And their goal is to "kill" the messenger at all costs. This is the pattern that has been going on ever since God sent his first prophets and on through Jesus and his apostles, and even into today.

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

Saint Dismas is facepalming in heaven right now because people who want to guarantee others salvation through a baptismless, fruitless, incantational Christianity are trying to use his life as an example for people who have 40 years, not 4 hours left on earth.

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

Saint Dismas is facepalming in heaven right now because people who want to guarantee others salvation through a baptismless, fruitless, incantational Christianity are trying to use his life as an example for people who have 40 years, not 4 hours left on earth.

---

How do you know? How do you know he isn't facepalming because people aren't realizing that all they need to do to be saved is just believe and trust in Jesus, as he did, when it was made so plain?

And once again, my questions continue to go unanswered. Here's where I press you on them, and then get labeled an evil sinner for doing so.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

....

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

---

But how much evidence? How can you know you've got enough evidence to be saved? Why didn't God tell us something that important? If we don't know, then we can't know if we are saved or not... so then why did God tell us we can know we are saved?

(for the hundredth time)