BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

To be fair, BTD, I asked you first long ago and you never answered,

So, I have been waiting longer.

Here's another one, though:

Do you want to have an argument or a discussion?

---

If I never answered, I apologize - there are so many questions thrown around it's easy to overlook some. That's why I repeatedly ask the same question so as to avoid that. But yet, as many times as I ask, it still goes unanswered.....

I think my answer to the question has been clear - I've said it's not the gospel. Therefore, being a believer in the gospel, I believe the answer is NO, the true believer does not go to hell.

Yes, I do want a discussion. But some of us still won't answer questions. And not just MY questions, but evidently, even their own....

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians -

If a non-believer were to break in a church during the Eucharist, and eat the bread and drink the wine after it has become Jesus' real flesh and blood, is that person saved? If you believe that John 6 is to be taken literally, then wouldn't it mean absolutely that he is?

And if so, why not then just have a priest call down Jesus into a massive amount of bread and wine, and just feed it to the world, regardless of what they believe, and therefore the whole world will be saved?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've stated actual historical facts on the matter. The sources ARE Catholic. It's all there in print in all my posts. You're not dealing with them, you're just resorting to denial.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

To be fair, BTD, I asked you first long ago and you never answered,

So, I have been waiting longer.

Here's another one, though:

Do you want to have an argument or a discussion?

---

If I never answered, I apologize - there are so many questions thrown around it's easy to overlook some. That's why I repeatedly ask the same question so as to avoid that. But yet, as many times as I ask, it still goes unanswered.....

I think my answer to the question has been clear - I've said it's not the gospel. Therefore, being a believer in the gospel, I believe the answer is NO, the true believer does not go to hell.

Yes, I do want a discussion. But some of us still won't answer questions. And not just MY questions, but evidently, even their own....

---

You could answer my original question. That is, if you really wanted the discussion you say you want.

But you didn't even pay enough attention to my original post to notice I did answer my own question in the same post where I posted it.

But riddle me this - how do you presume to know if someone is true to Christ or not?

God knows His children. Many times humans fail to come anywhere close to the truth.

EDIT - for clarity, in my question I posited someone who was baptized a believer, but who fell back into old habits, like fornication, and drunkenness.

That is, his actions are not those of someone following Christ. Yet you assume he is a "true believer".

Why?

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've stated actual historical facts on the matter. The sources ARE Catholic. It's all there in print in all my posts. You're not dealing with them, you're just resorting to denial.

---

You've posted a handful of Catholic fathers. They are not the majority. Even if they were, the Church as always held these beliefs.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians -

If a non-believer were to break in a church during the Eucharist, and eat the bread and drink the wine after it has become Jesus' real flesh and blood, is that person saved? If you believe that John 6 is to be taken literally, then wouldn't it mean absolutely that he is?

And if so, why not then just have a priest call down Jesus into a massive amount of bread and wine, and just feed it to the world, regardless of what they believe, and therefore the whole world will be saved?

---

Nope.

1 Cor 11:27-30:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon. It was in various councils such as Hippo, Carthage, Rome, Trullo, Laodicea, etc where canons were endorsed. However, it is important to note that there were differences in the canons between these councils, and that church history clearly shows that there really wasn't agreement with those various councils with respect to the canon (mainly the Old Testament) among the church. In fact, as I had outlined, in the Western Church the dominant view was that which was held by Jerome, that the deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) were NOT part of Old Testament canon.

---

These are assertions trying to lead people away from the truth. Hippo, Carthage (both of them), and Rome ALL affirm the Deuterocanon.

You'll need to back up your claim that "Western Church the dominant view was that which was held by Jerome, that the deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) were NOT part of Old Testament canon." Please cite Catholic sources, not one exceedingly-biased Protestant author.

---

...and the Council of Laodicea did not include the deuterocanon, and the Council of Trullo approved the canons of Athanasius, Amphilochius, and the Apostolic canons, which rejected all the major books of the deuterocanon. This was already discussed in previous posts, and you've yet to deal with this fact. It's not leading people away from the truth, it's presenting it to them

The "exceedingly-biased Protestant author" is citing history using Catholic sources.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians -

If a non-believer were to break in a church during the Eucharist, and eat the bread and drink the wine after it has become Jesus' real flesh and blood, is that person saved? If you believe that John 6 is to be taken literally, then wouldn't it mean absolutely that he is?

And if so, why not then just have a priest call down Jesus into a massive amount of bread and wine, and just feed it to the world, regardless of what they believe, and therefore the whole world will be saved?

---

Nope.

1 Cor 11:27-30:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

---

Then if Jesus' words in John 6 are to be taken literally, then either Jesus is wrong, or Paul here is wrong.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've stated actual historical facts on the matter. The sources ARE Catholic. It's all there in print in all my posts. You're not dealing with them, you're just resorting to denial.

---

You've posted a handful of Catholic fathers. They are not the majority. Even if they were, the Church as always held these beliefs.

---

...plus over THIRTY theologians, scholars, bishops, cardinals, and a pope, several bible translations, THE major reference text in the middle ages, several Councils, multiple canons... and that's just the Western Church, I didn't even get to the Eastern Church.

Yes, the Church had a long history of believing the deuterocanon was part of canon - but also a long history of believing it was NOT part of canon. Remember, your (and RealityBites') claim was that Protestants REMOVED books that were always there and that it was a recent extraction, a recent change. However, I've clearly shown that what you and RealityBites can NOT argue is that there is not a strong, deep historical basis for the Protestant canon - in fact, the historical evidence for it PREDATES the inclusion of the deuterocanon, even supported by Jewish and biblical history, and the earliest known history of the church.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon. It was in various councils such as Hippo, Carthage, Rome, Trullo, Laodicea, etc where canons were endorsed. However, it is important to note that there were differences in the canons between these councils, and that church history clearly shows that there really wasn't agreement with those various councils with respect to the canon (mainly the Old Testament) among the church. In fact, as I had outlined, in the Western Church the dominant view was that which was held by Jerome, that the deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) were NOT part of Old Testament canon.

---

These are assertions trying to lead people away from the truth. Hippo, Carthage (both of them), and Rome ALL affirm the Deuterocanon.

You'll need to back up your claim that "Western Church the dominant view was that which was held by Jerome, that the deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) were NOT part of Old Testament canon." Please cite Catholic sources, not one exceedingly-biased Protestant author.

---

...and the Council of Laodicea did not include the deuterocanon, and the Council of Trullo approved the canons of Athanasius, Amphilochius, and the Apostolic canons, which rejected all the major books of the deuterocanon. This was already discussed in previous posts, and you've yet to deal with this fact. It's not leading people away from the truth, it's presenting it to them

The "exceedingly-biased Protestant author" is citing history using Catholic sources.

---

Actually the Council of Laodicea omitted Revelation, but included the Tanakh and some of the Deuterocanonicals. It also included the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jermmiah.

The Council in Trullo another regional council that was held by the Eastern bishops in Constantinople. It it had several different promulgations of scripture.

It is this the magisterium of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that determined what is canonical.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there is sin that leads to death, how do you know that doesn't mean physical death, or, if "death" here is actual spiritual death (as in going to hell) that the sin it's referring to is the sin of unbelief?

---

Does it say the "sin of unbelief"? No. John is talking about actual sin here.
Does any scholar or anyone during this time believe that sin would cause physical death? No. You are trying to isogete your belief into this passage.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics say that simply missing mass on purpose, for example, is the kind of "mortal sin" this verse is referring to. By what revelation do Catholics claim this?

---

"Keep the Lord's Day holy"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If a mortal sin involves a wicked thought, then it would be very plausible that someone could go on with their day, and completely forget that they had that thought earlier.

---

A wicked thought does not necessarily mean one has committed a mortal sin. We all have thoughts that pop into our head. Dwelling on those thought is one way for them to become evil.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

A mortal sin must contain three elements - Grave nature (breaking a commandment), knowing that it is of grave nature, and freely committing it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, you can fall away from grace if you go back to obeying the law as the means for being justified, and rejecting Jesus' gospel of grace. That's what Paul's talking about in Galatians 5:4.

---

The point here is that one CAN fall away from Grace. If one trying to "be justified by the law" is enough to make one fall from grace, then surely a mortal sin does the same.

I've already demonstrated how the bible does distinguish between mortal and venial sins.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question isn't whether salvation is a "one time event" or not. The question is what is salvation based on - faith, or in part or wholly due to our works. Salvation does require keeping one's faith and not falling away from it. In that sense, it does involve your faith "enduring to the end".

---

Who has brought works into this discussion?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But this isn't a question about "once saved, always saved". I didn't really get an answer to the question - if a true believer makes a mistake and sins, and dies before they could repent for whatever reason, does that Christian go to hell?

---

Maybe you missed it, but I answered, YES, in capital letters.

---

- I'm not exegeting anything. If anything YOU are the one exegeting if you are saying that a list of Catholic "mortal sins" are what's being referred to in that verse. I'm simply saying that you haven't proven that what I'm saying about the verse is wrong.

- Where does it say that failing to "keep the Lord's day holy" is a "mortal sin" that if you commit, you go to hell despite your faith in Jesus? See who's "exegting"?

- Yes, and what you're describing about sinful thoughts CAN be forgotten about. That's the point. You denied that it can.

- More bad logic. Because you CAN fall away from grace because you are denying that grace, then it means you can fall away from grace from anything else Catholics call "mortal sin". The former is logically true, and it is biblical. The latter is a Catholic innovation.

- Your case about mortal and venial sins being biblical is very weak. I've demonstrated that.

- "who has brought works into the discussion" - HUH? Not sure what you're point is here. It doesn't refute anything that's been said. And it's been a central part of the discussion throughout this whole thread. You are saying works are part of salvation by insisting that we keep from committing "mortal sins".

- if your answer is YES, then you don't have the gospel.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've stated actual historical facts on the matter. The sources ARE Catholic. It's all there in print in all my posts. You're not dealing with them, you're just resorting to denial.

---

You've posted a handful of Catholic fathers. They are not the majority. Even if they were, the Church as always held these beliefs.

---

...plus over THIRTY theologians, scholars, bishops, cardinals, and a pope, several bible translations, THE major reference text in the middle ages, several Councils, multiple canons... and that's just the Western Church, I didn't even get to the Eastern Church.

Yes, the Church had a long history of believing the deuterocanon was part of canon - but also a long history of believing it was NOT part of canon. Remember, your (and RealityBites') claim was that Protestants REMOVED books that were always there and that it was a recent extraction, a recent change. However, I've clearly shown that what you and RealityBites can NOT argue is that there is not a strong, deep historical basis for the Protestant canon - in fact, the historical evidence for it PREDATES the inclusion of the deuterocanon, even supported by Jewish and biblical history, and the earliest known history of the church.

---

One council regional council in the East. 30 theologians of 1500 years - equates to one person every 50 years. That's a majority? From the earliest of days (Council of Rome - 382) it was considered scripture.

You are relying on a skewed and untrue Protestant version that denies what really happened.

With all respect to our Jewish brothers, but they don't get to determine the canon of Christian scripture.

As I said, we've discussed this ad nauseam. I've presented real history with articles. You're letting your bias cloud your reasoning.

We're done with this as we can't go any further here.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians -

If a non-believer were to break in a church during the Eucharist, and eat the bread and drink the wine after it has become Jesus' real flesh and blood, is that person saved? If you believe that John 6 is to be taken literally, then wouldn't it mean absolutely that he is?

And if so, why not then just have a priest call down Jesus into a massive amount of bread and wine, and just feed it to the world, regardless of what they believe, and therefore the whole world will be saved?

---

Nope.

1 Cor 11:27-30:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

---

Then if Jesus' words in John 6 are to be taken literally, then either Jesus is wrong, or Paul here is wrong.

---

How so?

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there is sin that leads to death, how do you know that doesn't mean physical death, or, if "death" here is actual spiritual death (as in going to hell) that the sin it's referring to is the sin of unbelief?

---

Does it say the "sin of unbelief"? No. John is talking about actual sin here.
Does any scholar or anyone during this time believe that sin would cause physical death? No. You are trying to isogete your belief into this passage.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics say that simply missing mass on purpose, for example, is the kind of "mortal sin" this verse is referring to. By what revelation do Catholics claim this?

---

"Keep the Lord's Day holy"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If a mortal sin involves a wicked thought, then it would be very plausible that someone could go on with their day, and completely forget that they had that thought earlier.

---

A wicked thought does not necessarily mean one has committed a mortal sin. We all have thoughts that pop into our head. Dwelling on those thought is one way for them to become evil.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

A mortal sin must contain three elements - Grave nature (breaking a commandment), knowing that it is of grave nature, and freely committing it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, you can fall away from grace if you go back to obeying the law as the means for being justified, and rejecting Jesus' gospel of grace. That's what Paul's talking about in Galatians 5:4.

---

The point here is that one CAN fall away from Grace. If one trying to "be justified by the law" is enough to make one fall from grace, then surely a mortal sin does the same.

I've already demonstrated how the bible does distinguish between mortal and venial sins.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question isn't whether salvation is a "one time event" or not. The question is what is salvation based on - faith, or in part or wholly due to our works. Salvation does require keeping one's faith and not falling away from it. In that sense, it does involve your faith "enduring to the end".

---

Who has brought works into this discussion?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But this isn't a question about "once saved, always saved". I didn't really get an answer to the question - if a true believer makes a mistake and sins, and dies before they could repent for whatever reason, does that Christian go to hell?

---

Maybe you missed it, but I answered, YES, in capital letters.

---

- I'm not exegeting anything. If anything YOU are the one exegeting if you are saying that a list of Catholic "mortal sins" are what's being referred to in that verse. I'm simply saying that you haven't proven that what I'm saying about the verse is wrong.

- Where does it say that failing to "keep the Lord's day holy" is a "mortal sin" that if you commit, you go to hell despite your faith in Jesus? See who's "exegting"?

- Yes, and what you're describing about sinful thoughts CAN be forgotten about. That's the point. You denied that it can.

- More bad logic. Because you CAN fall away from grace because you are denying that grace, then it means you can fall away from grace from anything else Catholics call "mortal sin". The former is logically true, and it is biblical. The latter is a Catholic innovation.

- Your case about mortal and venial sins being biblical is very weak. I've demonstrated that.

- "who has brought works into the discussion" - HUH? Not sure what you're point is here. It doesn't refute anything that's been said. And it's been a central part of the discussion throughout this whole thread. You are saying works are part of salvation by insisting that we keep from committing "mortal sins".

- if your answer is YES, then you don't have the gospel.

---

- I've shown with scripture that one can lose their salvation.

- You think that violating one of the ten commandment is NOT a mortal sin. Those are called the MORAL laws.

- Are you saying that as long as one keeps their faith, they can sin as much as they want and not lose salvation?

- A Catholic invention? - You really don't understand the bible. The Church fathers did:

Shepard of Hermas - "And as many of them . . . as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower [i.e., the Church]. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish. . . . But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord" - A.D. 80

Ignatius of Antioch - "And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?" A.D. 110.

Justin Martyr - "[E]ternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy A.D. 156.

Irenaeus -"[T]he ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [God] may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory" A.D. 189.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Right... the Council of Laodicea omitted the major books of the deuterocanon.

Right....the Council of Trullo approved of canons which did not include the deuterocanonicals.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: how can Trent anathematize its own Church's previous councils, and not be in contradiction?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I can argue that the Holy Spirit guided the Church through Protestantism to recognize the original Jewish canon, which Jesus himself affirmed, and the original canon of the earliest church, which was not added to by fallible tradition. A belief held by significant figures in church history, and the majority of theologians and scholars of the middles ages all the way up to the time of the Reformation.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

how do you square your interpretation of those verses with verses that show that you can NOT lose your salvation?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- but where does it say that violating one of the Ten Commandments is a "mortal sin" that can send someone to hell, even after they become a Christian and put their faith in Jesus?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I am not saying that one can "sin all they want" as if their salvation is a license to sin freely. Paul deals with this very subject. If someone thinks that way, then it is an indicator that their faith isn't real.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- you're telling me it's not a Catholic innovation... and then you quote Catholic fathers (as you call them) as proof. See the problem there?

---

Quote:

---

Actually, Laodicea was a synod, not a council. It did contain some of the deuterocanon when the Church was still discerning the canon.

Trullo was a small council in the East. The Church determines the canon.

---

Quote:

---

Trent didn't anathematize the previous councils. It anathematize anyone moving forward that rejected it.

---

Quote:

---

So was Jesus lying when he said the "Gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church] if it took the Protestants 1500 years to get it right?

---

Quote:

---

We've both presented what appears to be contradictions. Let me ask, how do you square the verses that state that we can lose salvation without twisting it.

---

Quote:

---

How do you rationalize breaking a commandment being OK with God?

---

Quote:

---

How do you know that your saved? What about the pastor that leads his flock for 20 years but has an affair? Was he saved? Is he still going to heaven?

---

Quote:

---

It shows that mortal sin has been believed in since the beginning of the Church.

---

Quote:

---

You are hell-bent (pardon the pun) denying what is in scripture. If you were honest with yourself and others here, you would realize that.

Your version of the gospel didn't exist until the 1500's.

---

Realitybites said:

---

880 A.D.

All of y'all would have a much better understanding of Christianity if you simply rejected out of hand any idea, doctrine, or proclamation made about the faith after that date.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are back to playing interrogator, I observe.

No reason to play along

I don't know why you do this so often, BTD, but it doesn't move the conversation ahead, only makes you look argumentative and bitter

There is some good insight and perspective here from a number of people, but you miss it because you only care about your pride.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

880 A.D.

All of y'all would have a much better understanding of Christianity if you simply rejected out of hand any idea, doctrine, or proclamation made about the faith after that date.

---

It would be helpful if you told us what you were referring to.

And how would you answer my question about the non-believer who eats the Eucharist bread and drnks the wine? How is he not saved according to the literal interpretation of John 6?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Do you truly have nothing better than spite and malice in your posts, BTD?

Sadly it seems so.

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

880 A.D.

All of y'all would have a much better understanding of Christianity if you simply rejected out of hand any idea, doctrine, or proclamation made about the faith after that date.

---

It would be helpful if you told us what you were referring to.

And how would you answer my question about the non-believer who eats the Eucharist bread and drnks the wine? How is he not saved according to the literal interpretation of John 6?

---

The eighth ecumenical council. With regards to your question, Saint Paul answered it.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
- 1st Corinthians 11:29.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Do you truly have nothing better than spite and malice in your posts, BTD?

Sadly it seems so.

---

Your projection is so obvious. You can't answer simple questions, then you lash out as a defensive response. Then you attack the Christianity of people who are simply asking you a question, while you go on to extol your own. You have some sort of a mind virus, and that is what is really sad.

---

BUDOS said:

---

Perhaps you should consider to take the log out of your own eye, as Oldbear seems to be trying to tell you rather gently.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Do you truly have nothing better than spite and malice in your posts, BTD?

Sadly it seems so.

---

Your projection is so obvious. You can't answer simple questions, then you lash out as a defensive response. Then you attack the Christianity of people who are simply asking you a question, while you go on to extol your own. You have some sort of a mind virus, and that is what is really sad.

---

Since you brought up 'attacking the Christianity of people for asking questions', who exactly called who "a fraud" in the last day?

---