Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Well, just because someone thinks something is scary has no impact on its validity. Theres no escape. The truth will be revealed to all

Careful who you follow

---

You know, that would apply to you just as much as anyone else, Fre3dombeaar.

---

It could apply to amyone, no? Yourself included. Agreed.

---

Agreed, but a statement which equally applies to everyone becomes meaningless, empty words.

---

Its not empty. Its actually the most important statement. Ones soul could be in the balance depending. For me, this is one of those such statements or beliefs. For others, they are clear it is not.

At this point on that topic, the cases have been made and now everyone can be careful who they follow.

Some will shrug and whistle past the graveyard. For others they will work so hard every day fighting every temptation of this temporal life, guarding every decision and moment and failing often until hopefully they finish the race strong (vs say the jimmy swaggart discussion above etc etc) as if their soul depends onnit as some here believe their soul depends daily on those choices.

One is osas and on the other side is the verses i posted in my 4 or 5 points above.

---

Your pride blinds you.

There is your danger.

---

No pride. Only humbleness. Only service to my Lord in all He calls and commands me to do daily to the best of my ability as a lowly humble sinner.

No idea why that would irk you but that's your own journey of introspection to work through

---

You have the same sin as BTD. You assume you have it all figured out, and anyone who seems to have a different understanding must be in danger of hell.

There are dozens of books in the Bible for a reason, hundreds of personal outcomes for a reason.

---

I am glad to know your rigjteous as well gives you the power to point out in your holiness someone elses sin. Seems a common thing with the opposing side here at least.

Planks and eyes and all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Well, just because someone thinks something is scary has no impact on its validity. Theres no escape. The truth will be revealed to all

Careful who you follow

---

You know, that would apply to you just as much as anyone else, Fre3dombeaar.

---

It could apply to amyone, no? Yourself included. Agreed.

---

Agreed, but a statement which equally applies to everyone becomes meaningless, empty words.

---

Its not empty. Its actually the most important statement. Ones soul could be in the balance depending. For me, this is one of those such statements or beliefs. For others, they are clear it is not.

At this point on that topic, the cases have been made and now everyone can be careful who they follow.

Some will shrug and whistle past the graveyard. For others they will work so hard every day fighting every temptation of this temporal life, guarding every decision and moment and failing often until hopefully they finish the race strong (vs say the jimmy swaggart discussion above etc etc) as if their soul depends onnit as some here believe their soul depends daily on those choices.

One is osas and on the other side is the verses i posted in my 4 or 5 points above.

---

Your pride blinds you.

There is your danger.

---

No pride. Only humbleness. Only service to my Lord in all He calls and commands me to do daily to the best of my ability as a lowly humble sinner.

No idea why that would irk you but that's your own journey of introspection to work through

---

You have the same sin as BTD. You assume you have it all figured out, and anyone who seems to have a different understanding must be in danger of hell.

There are dozens of books in the Bible for a reason, hundreds of personal outcomes for a reason.

---

What's the sin in telling others their beliefs aren't in line with Scripture, and explaining why and how??

If you think anything I've said is wrong, then why don't you explain? Are you just on the sidelines casting judgements? Isn't that a sin?

Well, at least I have offended the Pharisees on both sides here

I also noticed you both completely ignored the point I made about how many outcomes there are in the Bible.

Just for openers, have you considered how one sin, not meant to hurt anyone, cut King Saul off from the Lord and he died soon after, while a series of sins, including deliberate murder, cost King David but he was restored to his throne and reconciled with the Lord?

Consider the different expectations by the Lord from Moses and Aaron.

Consider indeed, how what God expects from each of us is highly specific, as indeed His mercy is often unique to the individual.

Consider the roles of James, Paul, and Peter. They had different experiences and served Christ in different but complementary ways.

You both are quick to accuse, but see nothing in your own conduct you should ask God for help in resolving.

I never claimed to be perfect, not qualified to judge, but cannot help but notice these behaviors in both of you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Consider the roles of James, Paul, and Peter. They had different experiences and served Christ in different but complementary ways.

You both are quick to accuse, but see nothing in your own conduct you should ask God for help in resolving.

I never claimed to be perfect, not qualified to judge, but cannot help but notice these behaviors in both of you.

---

So, it's okay to believe in a gospel that's not Scriptural? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

You're "not qualified to judge", but you throw around that "Pharisee" label more than anyone I've ever encountered.

Everything you say is projection.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Consider the roles of James, Paul, and Peter. They had different experiences and served Christ in different but complementary ways.

You both are quick to accuse, but see nothing in your own conduct you should ask God for help in resolving.

I never claimed to be perfect, not qualified to judge, but cannot help but notice these behaviors in both of you.

---

So, it's okay to believe in a gospel that's not Scriptural? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

You're "not qualified to judge", but you throw around that "Pharisee" label more than anyone I've ever encountered.

Everything you say is projection.

---

Funny you should mention projection. I have never said the Gospel is non-Scriptural.

You and your RC oppo, however, have both ignored Scripture when you don't like it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Well, at least I have offended the Pharisees on both sides here

I also noticed you both completely ignored the point I made about how many outcomes there are in the Bible.

Just for openers, have you considered how one sin, not meant to hurt anyone, cut King Saul off from the Lord and he died soon after, while a series of sins, including deliberate murder, cost King David but he was restored to his throne and reconciled with the Lord?

Consider the different expectations by the Lord from Moses and Aaron.

Consider indeed, how what God expects from each of us is highly specific, as indeed His mercy is often unique to the individual.

---

I think ive made this point several times and agree with you. Do not lump Me in with the other poster condemning people to hell. I would never and have never.

My main point of any engagement on this thread kf this particular religious board has been has been making the case against osas and God commanding us to DO many things beyond just having faith and that anyone on their journey should consider those points

What they choose to do with the knowledge and info is up to them and i will make no judgment of them and never have.

No. As you appear to do occasionally, you misinterpret my statements and their meaning. Perhaps that's because my belief system processes information slightly differently than yours and subconsciously affects our perception of what a person is meaning/saying, I'm not sure. I think I can understand why you believe I said what you said; however, it's not what I meant.
I do appreciate the overall tone you used in this post. Right after my last post I had already decided that I was not going to respond, expecting your usual authoritarian tone. However, since you turned it down a bit, I changed my mind. Thanks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Consider the roles of James, Paul, and Peter. They had different experiences and served Christ in different but complementary ways.

You both are quick to accuse, but see nothing in your own conduct you should ask God for help in resolving.

I never claimed to be perfect, not qualified to judge, but cannot help but notice these behaviors in both of you.

---

Wow. The word accuse apparently does not mean what you think it means. Again, never jusged anyone. Thats up to God.

Be only emgaged in an intellectual defense of my position which is why i blocked the other poster i assume youre referring to.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Consider the roles of James, Paul, and Peter. They had different experiences and served Christ in different but complementary ways.

You both are quick to accuse, but see nothing in your own conduct you should ask God for help in resolving.

I never claimed to be perfect, not qualified to judge, but cannot help but notice these behaviors in both of you.

---

So, it's okay to believe in a gospel that's not Scriptural? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

You're "not qualified to judge", but you throw around that "Pharisee" label more than anyone I've ever encountered.

Everything you say is projection.

---

Funny you should mention projection. I have never said the Gospel is non-Scriptural.

You and your RC oppo, however, have both ignored Scripture when you don't like it.

---

You are the king of projection. You're always accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing. A lot of times in the very same post. Your previous post accusing us of being judgemental and having poor conduct, and virtually in the same breath telling us we're "quick to accuse" and that we're "Pharisees" being a perfect example.

I have never "ignored" scripture. What usually happens is, you bring up scripture that has nothing to do with the point, or your appilcaton of it doesn't fit. Your previous post is the perfect example of this, too - the issue is that people are adding works to the gospel, which Paul clearly teaches is a false gospel. You, however, are trying to make some kind of confusing, irrelevant point using Paul, James, and Peter as an example of people being Christian in different ways. But what does that have to do with the gospel? Did they each teach different gospels? Are you actually justifying the teaching of a false gospel as an example of being Christian in "different" ways, like the apostles? It's just perplexing. If this is how you use scripture, then maybe it deserves to be ignored.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you now judging him that he wasn't originally saved? No, YOU are judging him that he's NOT. I'm saying you can't go by what he "says", but by what he truly believes and has faith in, which only God can know.

---

I'm trying to understand want you meant with the quotation of the word "SAID". Was it for emphasis on the fact that he said it or were the quotations implying that contradiction to his actual reality?

JB stated that he never stopped loving Jesus EVEN when sinning. I'm trying to understand your theology here. I assume that you believed if he "keep his faith" even while sinning, he was still saved."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then you are constantly and continually breaking it every day. You will never be righteous this way, and you can never be saved in the Roman Catholic system.

---

Your statement continue to reflect a basic understanding of scripture and understanding what mortal sin is.

1. The Sin must be grave matter.
2. The individual must have full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act.
3. There must be deliberate consent in committing the sin.

Failing to love God perfectly throughout the day, may be a shortcoming, but it doesn't meet the conditions of a mortal sin.

Human Imperfection - God understands that we are works in progress. We journey toward holiness daily with continual growth, repentance, and conversion. This is NOT a willful rejection of God.

Intent and Awareness - Mortal sin involves deliberate choosing against God's will. When we fail to love perfectly, it's not a conscience decision to reject Him, it is due to human distraction, weakness, or oversight.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you now judging him that he wasn't originally saved? No, YOU are judging him that he's NOT. I'm saying you can't go by what he "says", but by what he truly believes and has faith in, which only God can know.

---

I'm trying to understand want you meant with the quotation of the word "SAID". Was it for emphasis on the fact that he said it or were the quotations implying that contradiction to his actual reality?

JB stated that he never stopped loving Jesus EVEN when sinning. I'm trying to understand your theology here. I assume that you believed if he "keep his faith" even while sinning, he was still saved."

---

Is it really that hard to understand? What someone "says' may not indicate what really is. Salvation is by what really is, not what someone says.

You obviously don't like it, but the biblical truth is that someone who truly believes that Jesus died for their sins, and believes in his resurrection, and trusts in Jesus for their eternal life - that person is saved to eternal life. No works required. Works are evidence of that faith. Even if someone doesn't appear to have good works, still, we don't know enough to judge. What if James Baker did a LOT of good things in his life that you didn't see? What if in his heart he is truly repentant for the bad things he did? Are you in any position to judge his salvation?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then you are constantly and continually breaking it every day. You will never be righteous this way, and you can never be saved in the Roman Catholic system.

---

Your statement continue to reflect a basic understanding of scripture and understanding what mortal sin is.

1. The Sin must be grave matter.
2. The individual must have full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act.
3. There must be deliberate consent in committing the sin.

Failing to love God perfectly throughout the day, may be a shortcoming, but it doesn't meet the conditions of a mortal sin.

Human Imperfection - God understands that we are works in progress. We journey toward holiness daily with continual growth, repentance, and conversion. This is NOT a willful rejection of God.

Intent and Awareness - Mortal sin involves deliberate choosing against God's will. When we fail to love perfectly, it's not a conscience decision to reject Him, it is due to human distraction, weakness, or oversight.

---

YOU SAID breaking the first and greatest commandment is a mortal sin. Now it's NOT?

If God understands we are a work in progress, then it means we will all be at different points in our lives when we each die. So what is the threshold for being saved? What's the cutoff point? If there isn't one, then works are meaningless with regard to one's salvation status. If there is a cutoff point, we don't know it, and none of us can know we are saved. And again (and again) - how does this square with the Bible which says we CAN know we are saved? How does this square with Paul's teaching that we receive the Holy Spirit immediately upon belief (like the house of Cornelius) and it's a seal and guarantee of our salvation?

Anyone want to address the substance of my post from yesterday?

Spleen-venting we have a surplus of, maybe you could try responding to the point?

I will repeat one part simply.

Do you understand why Saul's sin was not forgiven, but David's series of sins including murder, were?

It certainly wasn't God being unjust.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

OR, salvation is by the thief's faith alone, and never could be lost even if he made a mistake and sinned before he died. That's more consistent with what the Bible overall teaches. That is "good news". The Roman Catholic "gospel" that a sin can throw you into Hell even after you've been saved is terrible, frightening news. Not only that, it cheapens Jesus sacrifice, saying that it was insufficient.

---

It's not frightening news. It's the gospel. You fail to understand again. Our committing mortal sin doesn't cheapen His sacrifice. It rejects it. My committing a mortal sin (all three conditions met) we are telling God that we reject his free gift of salvation. A OSAS position actually takes Christ's sacrifice for granted if one can continue to sin with no consequences.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing in the text says that her sinning again would cause her to lose her salvation, either. You would think that Jesus wouldn't just say "Go in peace" if that were the case. There isn't peace in that. You'd think that it would behoove him to tell that her salvation he just gave her was so tenuous.

---

One could argue that the encounter with God left her transformed and she never sinned again. We are not told anything thing further about her. It's a simple blessing a salutation. You are reading into the text again.

Also, where does it say that she said anything to Jesus about here faith in him. It looks like her actions has to do with her salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

----> where does he state that? I'm not reading into anything, I'm reading the exact words - "knowledge of" is not faith. You're just not being careful with what's really being said. YOU'RE reading your belief into the passage, because you're disregarding the words "knowledge of", while I'm not.

---

I find it very interesting that you will shift the authors meaning when the passage doesn't fit your theology.

"Knowledge of truth" signifies a relational and experiential understanding of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. It implies having an encounter with the truth of Christ's redemptive work and the call to live according to his teachings.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

that contradicts Paul's clear teaching that salvation happens immediately upon belief when the Holy Spirit is given. It contradicts the salvation of the house of Cornelius. It also contradicts instances where Jesus himself saved people. These were instant, not a process.

---

We are using terms that have different meaning. The Catholic Church recognizes that Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification are interconnected aspects of the Christian life.

Justification the act of being made right with God.

Salvation the overarching process of being saved from sin and its consequences and being brought into enteral union with God. This is a journey and process.

Sanctification the process of becoming holy, set apart for God's purpose, growing in likeness in Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The OSAS position requires a great deal of eisegesis. ---> it requires rightly understanding the Gospel message coming from the plain, honest reading of the Bible.

---

Why should anyone take your interpretation of what the bible says? How did you become the soul arbiter of truth? Is the bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

OR, salvation is by the thief's faith alone, and never could be lost even if he made a mistake and sinned before he died. That's more consistent with what the Bible overall teaches. That is "good news". The Roman Catholic "gospel" that a sin can throw you into Hell even after you've been saved is terrible, frightening news. Not only that, it cheapens Jesus sacrifice, saying that it was insufficient.

---

It's not frightening news. It's the gospel. You fail to understand again. Our committing mortal sin doesn't cheapen His sacrifice. It rejects it. My committing a mortal sin (all three conditions met) we are telling God that we reject his free gift of salvation. A OSAS position actually takes Christ's sacrifice for granted if one can continue to sin with no consequences.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing in the text says that her sinning again would cause her to lose her salvation, either. You would think that Jesus wouldn't just say "Go in peace" if that were the case. There isn't peace in that. You'd think that it would behoove him to tell that her salvation he just gave her was so tenuous.

---

One could argue that the encounter with God left her transformed and she never sinned again. We are not told anything thing further about her. It's a simple blessing a salutation. You are reading into the text again.

Also, where does it say that she said anything to Jesus about here faith in him. It looks like her actions has to do with her salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

----> where does he state that? I'm not reading into anything, I'm reading the exact words - "knowledge of" is not faith. You're just not being careful with what's really being said. YOU'RE reading your belief into the passage, because you're disregarding the words "knowledge of", while I'm not.

---

I find it very interesting that you will shift the authors meaning when the passage doesn't fit your theology.

"Knowledge of truth" signifies a relational and experiential understanding of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. It implies having an encounter with the truth of Christ's redemptive work and the call to live according to his teachings.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

that contradicts Paul's clear teaching that salvation happens immediately upon belief when the Holy Spirit is given. It contradicts the salvation of the house of Cornelius. It also contradicts instances where Jesus himself saved people. These were instant, not a process.

---

We are using terms that have different meaning. The Catholic Church recognizes that Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification are interconnected aspects of the Christian life.

Justification the act of being made right with God.

Salvation the overarching process of being saved from sin and its consequences and being brought into enteral union with God. This is a journey and process.

Sanctification the process of becoming holy, set apart for God's purpose, growing in likeness in Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The OSAS position requires a great deal of eisegesis. ---> it requires rightly understanding the Gospel message coming from the plain, honest reading of the Bible.

---

Why should anyone take your interpretation of what the bible says? How did you become the soul arbiter of truth? Is the bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

---

All of your points are wrong, and have been addressed before. I'm just going to answer this one point, because it's I really need to do to demonstrate how you can get things so, so wrong, as if you don't even read the Bible at all:

You: "Also, where does it say that she said anything to Jesus about here faith in him. It looks like her actions has to do with her salvation."

Umm..... the part where Jesus says "Your faith has saved you". (Luke 7:50)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He can't be talking about salvation. He clearly teaches in his other letters that salvation is a "gift", not a reward for meritorious works, which is what a "prize" is. ***If "prize" means salvation, then Paul is contradicting himself in this very letter that he's writing to the Galatians. The whole purpose of the letter was to reaffirm that salvation is NOT by any works of the Law (circumcision) but rather only by grace through faith in Jesus. So HOW can he all of the sudden turn completely around and tell the Galatians to run hard for the "prize" as if in a competition, which would then be saying that their salvation is dependent on their performance/works ?? This is yet again an instance where you have to make Paul contradict himself in order for your position to be true.

---

Paul uses athletic metaphors in his letters many times. He is encouraging the Galatians to follow God's commandments and not sin.

It is why Matthew say in 24:13 - "he who endures to the end shall be saved"

I strongly urge you to read Paul's letter to the Galatians. Judaizers had come into the church there, and had been teaching that you still needed to perform works of the Law (circumcision) in addition to your faith to be saved. Paul absolutely hated this, and he anathematized them. TWICE. Paul adamantly insisted they were distorting the true gospel of grace and turning it into a false gospel by adding works.

Isn't this what the Roman Catholic Church is doing, and what YOU are professing, by insisting on performative actions in addition to faith as being necessary for salvation?? Isn't this the exact thing that Paul anathematizes?? HOW do you not see this??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

YOU SAID breaking the first and greatest commandment is a mortal sin. Now it's NOT?

If God understands we are a work in progress, then it means we will all be at different points in our lives when we each die. So what is the threshold for being saved? What's the cutoff point? If there isn't one, then works are meaningless with regard to one's salvation status. If there is a cutoff point, we don't know it, and none of us can know we are saved. And again (and again) - how does this square with the Bible which says we CAN know we are saved? How does this square with Paul's teaching that we receive the Holy Spirit immediately upon belief (like the house of Cornelius) and it's a seal and guarantee of our salvation?

---

What you described in NOT breaking the first commandment, nor a mortal sin, because it doesn't meet the ALL three conditions to qualify as a mortal sin.

Your theology is so wrapped around OSAS that you can't see the forest thru the trees.

Justification (being saved) is a free gift that we can accept or reject. We can never take the gift or we can later reject it by sinning.

This is why Paul and other discuss running the race and enduring to the end.

Matthew also says in 10:22 - he who perseveres to the end, will be saved.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He can't be talking about salvation. He clearly teaches in his other letters that salvation is a "gift", not a reward for meritorious works, which is what a "prize" is. ***If "prize" means salvation, then Paul is contradicting himself in this very letter that he's writing to the Galatians. The whole purpose of the letter was to reaffirm that salvation is NOT by any works of the Law (circumcision) but rather only by grace through faith in Jesus. So HOW can he all of the sudden turn completely around and tell the Galatians to run hard for the "prize" as if in a competition, which would then be saying that their salvation is dependent on their performance/works ?? This is yet again an instance where you have to make Paul contradict himself in order for your position to be true.

---

Paul uses athletic metaphors in his letters many times. He is encouraging the Galatians to follow God's commandments and not sin.

It is why Matthew say in 24:13 - "he who endures to the end shall be saved"

---

But you're saying that Paul's saying this is what they need to do to BE SAVED. You're saying the "prize" is salvation. This contradicts his point of the whole letter to the Galatians.

Matthew is talking about faith enduring, not works.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

YOU SAID breaking the first and greatest commandment is a mortal sin. Now it's NOT?

If God understands we are a work in progress, then it means we will all be at different points in our lives when we each die. So what is the threshold for being saved? What's the cutoff point? If there isn't one, then works are meaningless with regard to one's salvation status. If there is a cutoff point, we don't know it, and none of us can know we are saved. And again (and again) - how does this square with the Bible which says we CAN know we are saved? How does this square with Paul's teaching that we receive the Holy Spirit immediately upon belief (like the house of Cornelius) and it's a seal and guarantee of our salvation?

---

What you described in NOT breaking the first commandment, nor a mortal sin, because it doesn't meet the ALL three conditions to qualify as a mortal sin. YOU SAID it was a mortal sin.

Your theology is so wrapped around OSAS that you can't see the forest thru the trees. Maybe because OSAS is correct?

Justification (being saved) is a free gift that we can accept or reject. We can never take the gift or we can later reject it by sinning. The bible never teaches this. In fact, it teaches that once we believe, we have a seal and guarantee of our salvation in the Holy Spirit. It also teaches that a believer can KNOW they are saved. It can't say this, if a believer can sin, and then NOT be saved.

This is why Paul and other discuss running the race and enduring to the end. In their faith.

Matthew also says in 10:22 - he who perseveres to the end, will be saved. Perseveres in their faith.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I strongly urge you to read Paul's letter to the Galatians. Judaizers had come into the church there, and had been teaching that you still needed to perform works of the Law (circumcision) in addition to your faith to be saved. Paul absolutely hated this, and he anathematized them. TWICE. Paul adamantly insisted they were distorting the true gospel of grace and turning it into a false gospel by adding works.

Isn't this what the Roman Catholic Church is doing, and what YOU are professing, by insisting on performative actions in addition to faith as being necessary for salvation?? Isn't this the exact thing that Paul anathematizes?? HOW do you not see this??

---

Where have I said that they are necessary for justification (being saved)?

Salvation is related but different:

James 2:14 - faith without works is dead.
Matthew 7:21 - only those who DO the will of my father.
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation with fear and trembling
Romans - 2:6 - God "will repay each person according to what they have done."
Matthew 25:31-46 - the parable of sheep and goats, when Jesus describes those entering enteral life involves caring for those in need.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I strongly urge you to read Paul's letter to the Galatians. Judaizers had come into the church there, and had been teaching that you still needed to perform works of the Law (circumcision) in addition to your faith to be saved. Paul absolutely hated this, and he anathematized them. TWICE. Paul adamantly insisted they were distorting the true gospel of grace and turning it into a false gospel by adding works.

Isn't this what the Roman Catholic Church is doing, and what YOU are professing, by insisting on performative actions in addition to faith as being necessary for salvation?? Isn't this the exact thing that Paul anathematizes?? HOW do you not see this??

---

Where have I said that they are necessary for justification (being saved)?

Salvation is related but different:

James 2:14 - faith without works is dead. Then someone who dies right after belief isn't saved. Obviously, James means that a person who "says" they have faith, but NEVER has works to show for it, has a dead faith. He's not saying that faith PLUS works saves.
Matthew 7:21 - only those who DO the will of my father. The will of the Father is that we believe in Jesus.
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation with fear and trembling You're repeating your failed arguments. "Work out" can't mean work "for", because then it would contradict everything Paul said that salvation is by faith apart from works. Does anything get through to you?
Romans - 2:6 - God "will repay each person according to what they have done." Rewards for the saved, punishment for the non-saved.
Matthew 25:31-46 - the parable of sheep and goats, when Jesus describes those entering enteral life involves caring for those in need. Then salvation would be purely by works, which is obviously not what the Bible teaches. Again, this verse has to do with the people on earth AFTER the Church age. You are not rightly dividing the word.

---

Do you or do you not agree with Paul, that adding ANY performative action to his gospel of grace makes it into a false gospel? Yes or no?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

YOU SAID it was a mortal sin.

---

Seriously, try to relax your guard for just one moment and TRY to understand what the Church says.

Not having God on our hearts 24/7 is NOT a moral sin. It doesn't meet the conditions that the Church lays out for so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The bible never teaches this. In fact, it teaches that once we believe, we have a seal and guarantee of our salvation in the Holy Spirit. It also teaches that a believer can KNOW they are saved. It can't say this, if a believer can sin, and then NOT be saved.

---

This false. I'm demonstrated several passages that state that we can reject or lose our salvation.

Even with the assurance of the Holy Spirit, we have free will. We can reject God, thereby, losing our salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is why Paul and other discuss running the race and enduring to the end. In their faith.

Matthew also says in 10:22 - he who perseveres to the end, will be saved. Perseveres in their faith.

---

Are you saying that if one loses their faith, they they are no longer saved?

Matthew 7:6 proves apt once again.

Pity, that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, this verse has to do with the people on earth AFTER the Church age. You are not rightly dividing the word.

---

What does this mean?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

YOU SAID it was a mortal sin.

---

Seriously, try to relax your guard for just one moment and TRY to understand what the Church says.

Not having God on our hearts 24/7 is NOT a moral sin. It doesn't meet the conditions that the Church lays out for so. But you said it was - were you wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The bible never teaches this. In fact, it teaches that once we believe, we have a seal and guarantee of our salvation in the Holy Spirit. It also teaches that a believer can KNOW they are saved. It can't say this, if a believer can sin, and then NOT be saved.

---

This false. I'm demonstrated several passages that state that we can reject or lose our salvation. And I've shown why your interpretation is false. It contradicts clear teaching.

Even with the assurance of the Holy Spirit, we have free will. We can reject God, thereby, losing our salvation. Jesus said that all that he has been given, NONE will be taken from him. Paul agrees with this, saying the Holy Spirit is a SEAL and GUARANTEE for those who truly believe. The Holy Spirit keeps true believers from falling away.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is why Paul and other discuss running the race and enduring to the end. In their faith.

Matthew also says in 10:22 - he who perseveres to the end, will be saved. Perseveres in their faith.

---

Are you saying that if one loses their faith, they they are no longer saved? Yes, IF. But Scripture teaches that true believers will not. Notice that EVEN IF we can lose our salvation, it would only be based on faith, not works.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, this verse has to do with the people on earth AFTER the Church age. You are not rightly dividing the word.

---

What does this mean?

---

We've already discussed this. The sheep and goats judgement is NOT a judgement on believers. Believers are the "these brothers of mine" Jesus referred to.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

OR, salvation is by the thief's faith alone, and never could be lost even if he made a mistake and sinned before he died. That's more consistent with what the Bible overall teaches. That is "good news". The Roman Catholic "gospel" that a sin can throw you into Hell even after you've been saved is terrible, frightening news. Not only that, it cheapens Jesus sacrifice, saying that it was insufficient.

---

It's not frightening news. It's the gospel. You fail to understand again. Our committing mortal sin doesn't cheapen His sacrifice. It rejects it. My committing a mortal sin (all three conditions met) we are telling God that we reject his free gift of salvation. A OSAS position actually takes Christ's sacrifice for granted if one can continue to sin with no consequences.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing in the text says that her sinning again would cause her to lose her salvation, either. You would think that Jesus wouldn't just say "Go in peace" if that were the case. There isn't peace in that. You'd think that it would behoove him to tell that her salvation he just gave her was so tenuous.

---

One could argue that the encounter with God left her transformed and she never sinned again. We are not told anything thing further about her. It's a simple blessing a salutation. You are reading into the text again.

Also, where does it say that she said anything to Jesus about here faith in him. It looks like her actions has to do with her salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

----> where does he state that? I'm not reading into anything, I'm reading the exact words - "knowledge of" is not faith. You're just not being careful with what's really being said. YOU'RE reading your belief into the passage, because you're disregarding the words "knowledge of", while I'm not.

---

I find it very interesting that you will shift the authors meaning when the passage doesn't fit your theology.

"Knowledge of truth" signifies a relational and experiential understanding of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. It implies having an encounter with the truth of Christ's redemptive work and the call to live according to his teachings.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

that contradicts Paul's clear teaching that salvation happens immediately upon belief when the Holy Spirit is given. It contradicts the salvation of the house of Cornelius. It also contradicts instances where Jesus himself saved people. These were instant, not a process.

---

We are using terms that have different meaning. The Catholic Church recognizes that Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification are interconnected aspects of the Christian life.

Justification the act of being made right with God.

Salvation the overarching process of being saved from sin and its consequences and being brought into enteral union with God. This is a journey and process.

Sanctification the process of becoming holy, set apart for God's purpose, growing in likeness in Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The OSAS position requires a great deal of eisegesis. ---> it requires rightly understanding the Gospel message coming from the plain, honest reading of the Bible.

---

Why should anyone take your interpretation of what the bible says? How did you become the soul arbiter of truth? Is the bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

---

Just taking Occam's razor to the osas position, why did Jesus take the time to say "neither do i condemn thee, go and now sin no more"

So if the thief had said, after Jesus spoke to him, "but that being said, Baal is still my #1 as it was for my dad and his dad before him…" and believed that in his heart, he would have gone to "Paradise" in the osas belief system?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

OR, salvation is by the thief's faith alone, and never could be lost even if he made a mistake and sinned before he died. That's more consistent with what the Bible overall teaches. That is "good news". The Roman Catholic "gospel" that a sin can throw you into Hell even after you've been saved is terrible, frightening news. Not only that, it cheapens Jesus sacrifice, saying that it was insufficient.

---

It's not frightening news. It's the gospel. You fail to understand again. Our committing mortal sin doesn't cheapen His sacrifice. It rejects it. My committing a mortal sin (all three conditions met) we are telling God that we reject his free gift of salvation. A OSAS position actually takes Christ's sacrifice for granted if one can continue to sin with no consequences.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing in the text says that her sinning again would cause her to lose her salvation, either. You would think that Jesus wouldn't just say "Go in peace" if that were the case. There isn't peace in that. You'd think that it would behoove him to tell that her salvation he just gave her was so tenuous.

---

One could argue that the encounter with God left her transformed and she never sinned again. We are not told anything thing further about her. It's a simple blessing a salutation. You are reading into the text again.

Also, where does it say that she said anything to Jesus about here faith in him. It looks like her actions has to do with her salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

----> where does he state that? I'm not reading into anything, I'm reading the exact words - "knowledge of" is not faith. You're just not being careful with what's really being said. YOU'RE reading your belief into the passage, because you're disregarding the words "knowledge of", while I'm not.

---

I find it very interesting that you will shift the authors meaning when the passage doesn't fit your theology.

"Knowledge of truth" signifies a relational and experiential understanding of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. It implies having an encounter with the truth of Christ's redemptive work and the call to live according to his teachings.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

that contradicts Paul's clear teaching that salvation happens immediately upon belief when the Holy Spirit is given. It contradicts the salvation of the house of Cornelius. It also contradicts instances where Jesus himself saved people. These were instant, not a process.

---

We are using terms that have different meaning. The Catholic Church recognizes that Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification are interconnected aspects of the Christian life.

Justification the act of being made right with God.

Salvation the overarching process of being saved from sin and its consequences and being brought into enteral union with God. This is a journey and process.

Sanctification the process of becoming holy, set apart for God's purpose, growing in likeness in Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The OSAS position requires a great deal of eisegesis. ---> it requires rightly understanding the Gospel message coming from the plain, honest reading of the Bible.

---

Why should anyone take your interpretation of what the bible says? How did you become the soul arbiter of truth? Is the bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

---

Just taking Occam's razor to the osas position, why did Jesus take the time to say "neither do i condemn thee, go and now sin no more"

---

Occam's razor has to take into account the whole of Scripture. Jesus also said "Your FAITH has saved you". FAITH, not works. The Bible teaches that upon faith we receive the Holy Spirit which is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of our salvation. John says we can KNOW we are saved, which wouldn't be possible if we can lose our salvation after coming to faith simply by sinning.

" Occam's razor has to take into account the whole of Scripture. Jesus also said "Your FAITH has saved you". FAITH, not works. The Bible teaches that upon faith we receive the Holy Spirit which is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of our salvation. John says we can KNOW we are saved, which wouldn't be possible if we can lose our salvation after coming to faith simply by sinning."

BTD,
I think I am misunderstanding your point, so please confirm if you believe "once saved always saved."

BUDOS said:

---

No. As you appear to do occasionally, you misinterpret my statements and their meaning. Perhaps that's because my belief system processes information slightly differently than yours and subconsciously affects our perception of what a person is meaning/saying, I'm not sure. I think I can understand why you believe I said what you said; however, it's not what I meant.
I do appreciate the overall tone you used in this post. Right after my last post I had already decided that I was not going to respond, expecting your usual authoritarian tone. However, since you turned it down a bit, I changed my mind. Thanks.

---

My tone in that post is the exact same tone in all my posts. You have a bias in your perception. I challenge you to produce a post of mine that was different in tone. I do reserve the right to claim that I was only returning the same tone to the person I was responding to, though. So go ahead, show me where.

BUDOS said:

---

" Occam's razor has to take into account the whole of Scripture. Jesus also said "Your FAITH has saved you". FAITH, not works. The Bible teaches that upon faith we receive the Holy Spirit which is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of our salvation. John says we can KNOW we are saved, which wouldn't be possible if we can lose our salvation after coming to faith simply by sinning."

BTD,
I think I am misunderstanding your point, so please confirm if you believe "once saved always saved."

---

I will answer any question, but I expect the same from you too. Earlier I asked you this, but it was unanswered:

"You AGREE that what he does to Mary isn't idolatry? So if you read my comment:

"You kiss, bow to, and pray to statues and pictures of Mary. You sing hymns to her in church. You pray to her in church. You hold multiple festivals for her throughout the year for her. In your prayers, you mention her name more than you do God's. And you LOVE and ADORE prayers that call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "our hope and refuge", "ruler of my house", "god of this world", "Mediatrix", and you "place your salvation in Mary's hands".

Are you saying that none of this is idolatry?"

What is your answer?

BUDOS said:

---

No. As you appear to do occasionally, you misinterpret my statements and their meaning. Perhaps that's because my belief system processes information slightly differently than yours and subconsciously affects our perception of what a person is meaning/saying, I'm not sure. I think I can understand why you believe I said what you said; however, it's not what I meant.

---

You clearly said that faith in Jesus makes one only a "candidate" for salvation. There is a reason you put it this way, and it goes along with your belief that we don't know if we're really saved until the end when the books are opened up to judge our works. I really don't see how it can be a misinterpretation, but if it is, it is due to your poor wording and explanation. Do you still feel that faith only makes you a "candidate" and if so, explain.