xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Faith is believing God to the point of submission to His will in your life, a reliance on Him.

---

Yes, but that raises the question of what God's will for your life is. Too many people today think too specifically about this: "Should I marry Sarah or Jennifer", "Should I move to Texas or Tennessee", and so on.

In reality, it is much less specific and God's will for your life is addressed directly in the Bible: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8).

Sure, sometimes when He has a very specific mission He will appear in a burning bush but for most people the specifics, well, aren't. That's a good thing, allowing us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling in line with our own personalities and circumstances. With our ability to misunderstand and unwillingness to follow through can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if God had a specific FRAGO for each and every one of us?

Do you mind if I use some of your statements, in context, in my adult Bible class on Sunday mornings?
I think they say things that need to be said, and said in a way many of today's Christians can better relate to, yet are based in scripture.

Through the Bible with Les Feldick walk you through the Bible in 25 minutes lessons

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even if you want to view salvation as a "process", the key question here isn't whether every believer must "complete the process" in order to be saved

---

Every believer must "complete the process" as it works itself out in that individual's life. There is no specific length of time, nor formula. Saint Dismas' only fruit was his profession of faith as he was baptized in his own blood and died on the cross next to Christ in a matter of hours. Other Christians serve God for decades before their earthly bodies fall asleep in Christ.

Matthew 20:1-15 addresses this.

Quote:

---

but rather, whether every true believer is already sealed/predestined to complete it. In other words, "once saved, the salvation process will be completed, thus once saved, always saved". That would be completely in line with the apostle Paul's teaching that once a person believes, the Holy Spirit enters them and is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of their salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30). And also completely in line with Paul's view in Romans 8 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

---

There is no such thing as a "true believer". That's a construct made necessary by the event salvation, OSAS heresy. There are believers, and there are unbelievers. Sheep and goats. Wheat and tares. There is no special organic wheat in the Kingdom of God. If you want to make the case that the elect are only those who complete their races, I suppose you could make that case. I don't really know what benefit that is though, as it is analysis through hindsight.

Quote:

---

In addition, it's completely in line with Jesus' claim, also in John chapter 6: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." If you're gonna say that the disciples who left Jesus were true believers who stopped believing, then you have to say that Jesus' claim here is false, or that God's will was thwarted.

---

No, Jesus doesn't lose anything. But we've already seen that disciples can walk away and forefeit their salvation. If you forefeit a game, you haven't lost it. You've just decided not to play.

---

If salvation is a "process" which must be completed, otherwise salvation is not attained, then there exists a point where the process is NOT completed, at which point if the person were to die, then they would not be saved, even as they have faith in Jesus.

---

Incorrect.

---

Your one-word "debunkings" have pretty much lost all credibility in these forums. Gonna need a lot more than "incorrect" to show what I'm saying is wrong.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

That's not it at all. We see salvation as "if I am to be saved, I must pick up my cross, follow Christ, and serve Him."

---

"That's not it at all"..... then you go on to say EXACTLY what I said that you say: "I MUST do this or that so that I will be saved". You're basing your salvation on what YOU do, not what Jesus has done.

You guys are so blind, even to yourselves.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

That's not it at all. We see salvation as "if I am to be saved, I must pick up my cross, follow Christ, and serve Him."

"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
1 John 2:28

---

What does "abiding in him" mean? And where in this verse is it talking about salvation?

BUDOS said:

---

Do you mind if I use some of your statements, in context, in my adult Bible class on Sunday mornings?
I think they say things that need to be said, and said in a way many of today's Christians can better relate to, yet are based in scripture.

---

Not at all. Go right ahead.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

Your position is if at one point in your life you walked an aisle, said an incantation, and felt like you meant it you are saved, period. You try and convert people to a religion of unconditional confidence while the scripture clearly states that any confidence the believer has is conditional.

That is why your modernist version of Christianity has created a couple of generations of man (really woman, men are checking out of evangelicalism) pleasers in the pulpits and people with a false assurance of salvation in the pews.

---

It doesn't matter what you do - walked the aisle, altar calls, recited prayers, whatever. What matters is whether you believe in your heart that Jesus died for your sin and was raised, and that if you put your trust in that for your eternal life, then you are saved. This is the repeated witness of the Bible. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

"You try and convert people to a religion of unconditional confidence while the scripture clearly states that any confidence the believer has is conditional." - conditional upon what? The Bible teaches it is conditional upon faith, as a free gift. You, however, are promoting the view that it is conditional upon works, as a wage. The bible says this is a false gospel and that anyone who teaches this is accursed.

BUDOS said:

---

Do you mind if I use some of your statements, in context, in my adult Bible class on Sunday mornings?
I think they say things that need to be said, and said in a way many of today's Christians can better relate to, yet are based in scripture.

---

You sure about that? It's one thing to believe in a false, works-based gospel for yourself, but it's entirely another to teach it to others. And this, despite the fact that you didn't have the whole "book of life" thing right, yet you teach it. Maybe you should make sure you have the gospel correct yourself, before you teach it to others. The bible says that those who teach a false, works-based gospel are accursed. You're treading on some very dangerous ground.

You've been warned.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

As far as the disciples who left Christ, note the word that the scripture uses to describe them. Disciples. Not false disciples, not DINOs, not false professors.

---

Scripture LITERALLY said there were "disciples" who didn't believe in Jesus. By definition, that makes them false disciples. Wasn't Judas a "disciple"?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

That's not it at all. We see salvation as "if I am to be saved, I must pick up my cross, follow Christ, and serve Him."

"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
1 John 2:28

Your position is if at one point in your life you walked an aisle, said an incantation, and felt like you meant it you are saved, period. You try and convert people to a religion of unconditional confidence while the scripture clearly states that any confidence the believer has is conditional.

That is why your modernist version of Christianity has created a couple of generations of man (really woman, men are checking out of evangelicalism) pleasers in the pulpits and people with a false assurance of salvation in the pews.

As far as the disciples who left Christ, note the word that the scripture uses to describe them. Disciples. Not false disciples, not DINOs, not false professors.

There is so much in scripture that is right in front of your eyes that you refuse to see to try and cling to your OSAS easy believism religion it is sad.

Do I hope I am saved? Of course. Do I *know* I am saved? Of course not. Thay would be the height of arrogance before God. I have no idea what tomorrow holds, and whether my faith can weather those things with the steadfastness of Job. I do hope it can, 1st Corinthians 10:13, but in the end all we can do is stand in front of Christ as the Publican and say, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." He is the righteous Almighty, and He shall judge each of us as He sees fit, and those judgements shall be correct.

---

As I've read through near countless posts on this thread of the banter of some, it seems all summed up as whistling past the graveyard.

Even using the technique of "thinking in reverse" to try to defend the position of OSAS i still cant make it remotely make sense. It has so many holes in it you could drive a VLCC through it, with room to spare

I read what they write and its basically no different, as an analogy, to Ben Shapiro defending Judaism with infinite confidence hes going to Heaven and those silly Christians follow that crucified carpenter yokel have no clue what theyre doing.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It needs to be said again:

Many of you ultimately see salvation like this: "I need to do/be good so that I might be saved".

When the biblical view on salvation is more like this: "I need to do/be good because I am saved".

---

Do I hope I am saved? Of course. Do I *know* I am saved? Of course not. Thay would be the height of arrogance before God.

---

Then why does God tell us directly in His word: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life"??

Can it be made any more clearer than this, that your view is contradictory to Scripture?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even if you want to view salvation as a "process", the key question here isn't whether every believer must "complete the process" in order to be saved

---

Every believer must "complete the process" as it works itself out in that individual's life. There is no specific length of time, nor formula. Saint Dismas' only fruit was his profession of faith as he was baptized in his own blood and died on the cross next to Christ in a matter of hours. Other Christians serve God for decades before their earthly bodies fall asleep in Christ.

Matthew 20:1-15 addresses this.

Quote:

---

but rather, whether every true believer is already sealed/predestined to complete it. In other words, "once saved, the salvation process will be completed, thus once saved, always saved". That would be completely in line with the apostle Paul's teaching that once a person believes, the Holy Spirit enters them and is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of their salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30). And also completely in line with Paul's view in Romans 8 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

---

There is no such thing as a "true believer". That's a construct made necessary by the event salvation, OSAS heresy. There are believers, and there are unbelievers. Sheep and goats. Wheat and tares. There is no special organic wheat in the Kingdom of God. If you want to make the case that the elect are only those who complete their races, I suppose you could make that case. I don't really know what benefit that is though, as it is analysis through hindsight.

Quote:

---

In addition, it's completely in line with Jesus' claim, also in John chapter 6: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." If you're gonna say that the disciples who left Jesus were true believers who stopped believing, then you have to say that Jesus' claim here is false, or that God's will was thwarted.

---

No, Jesus doesn't lose anything. But we've already seen that disciples can walk away and forefeit their salvation. If you forefeit a game, you haven't lost it. You've just decided not to play.

---

If salvation is a "process" which must be completed, otherwise salvation is not attained, then there exists a point where the process is NOT completed, at which point if the person were to die, then they would not be saved, even as they have faith in Jesus.

---

Incorrect.

---

Your one-word "debunkings" have pretty much lost all credibility in these forums. Gonna need a lot more than "incorrect" to show what I'm saying is wrong.

---

There are no one-word debunkings in my repertoire. The substance of those posts is always in the link that no one reads.

In this case I'm just reminding you of what some of us have already explained. Catholics and Orthodox don't believe many of the things you attribute to them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What does "abiding in him" mean? And where in this verse is it talking about salvation?

---

John 3:10.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even if you want to view salvation as a "process", the key question here isn't whether every believer must "complete the process" in order to be saved

---

Every believer must "complete the process" as it works itself out in that individual's life. There is no specific length of time, nor formula. Saint Dismas' only fruit was his profession of faith as he was baptized in his own blood and died on the cross next to Christ in a matter of hours. Other Christians serve God for decades before their earthly bodies fall asleep in Christ.

Matthew 20:1-15 addresses this.

Quote:

---

but rather, whether every true believer is already sealed/predestined to complete it. In other words, "once saved, the salvation process will be completed, thus once saved, always saved". That would be completely in line with the apostle Paul's teaching that once a person believes, the Holy Spirit enters them and is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of their salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30). And also completely in line with Paul's view in Romans 8 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

---

There is no such thing as a "true believer". That's a construct made necessary by the event salvation, OSAS heresy. There are believers, and there are unbelievers. Sheep and goats. Wheat and tares. There is no special organic wheat in the Kingdom of God. If you want to make the case that the elect are only those who complete their races, I suppose you could make that case. I don't really know what benefit that is though, as it is analysis through hindsight.

Quote:

---

In addition, it's completely in line with Jesus' claim, also in John chapter 6: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." If you're gonna say that the disciples who left Jesus were true believers who stopped believing, then you have to say that Jesus' claim here is false, or that God's will was thwarted.

---

No, Jesus doesn't lose anything. But we've already seen that disciples can walk away and forefeit their salvation. If you forefeit a game, you haven't lost it. You've just decided not to play.

---

If salvation is a "process" which must be completed, otherwise salvation is not attained, then there exists a point where the process is NOT completed, at which point if the person were to die, then they would not be saved, even as they have faith in Jesus.

---

Incorrect.

---

Your one-word "debunkings" have pretty much lost all credibility in these forums. Gonna need a lot more than "incorrect" to show what I'm saying is wrong.

---

There are no one-word debunkings in my repertoire. The substance of those posts is always in the link that no one reads.

In this case I'm just reminding you of what some of us have already explained. Catholics and Orthodox don't believe many of the things you attribute to them.

---

I've cited their (your) actual dogmas, magisterial teachings, traditions, and even their own direct quotes. You're attempting a ridiculous level of gaslighting. You're still not even explaining how my above comment was "incorrect". This is what those steeped in deception are usually unable to do.

I challenge anyone, including you, to name one thing I've attributed to Catholics or Orthodox that isn't true or isn't taught by them, or one thing I've attributed to a poster here that wasn't what they themselves stated as their belief.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What does "abiding in him" mean? And where in this verse is it talking about salvation?

---

John 3:10.

---

"Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"

???

I'm sure you meant 1 John 3:10. In that verse, does it say that "practicing righteousness" is required for salvation, or is it rather saying that practicing righteousness is a characteristic of someone who is saved, i.e. it's the evidence/fruit of salvation? Here lies the misunderstanding in your view. Just like with the previous verse you referenced, you're making these verses out to be about the requirements of salvation, but they are not.

No, I meant John 3:10. If I had meant 1st John 3:10, I would have said 1st John 3:10.

My Democrat friends have been quoting bible passages that insinuate that God loves open borders.

So, looks like we're all getting into Heaven without being vetted.

That may depend upon what is written in the Book of Life on each of us Just saying.

Just want to throw something out there that seems relevant to me.

Not going to go Chapter and Verse here, but we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. Now I was brought up to believe, and still do, that the people Jesus took the trouble to mention, actually existed and did what our Lord says they did.

So when we hear about the Good Samaritan, the man who loved his neighbor the way God wants us to love our neighbor, we don't hear even one word about him quoting Scripture, he didn't worry about the doctrine of the man he rescued and paid to recover; indeed we are reminded the man who pleased Christ was a Samaritan, which sect did not believe the same formal teachings Jesus taught ... yet what matters in this case is what the man did.

None of this should be taken to mean that Jesus did not care about doctrine. None of this means that all roads are equally valid. But Jesus emphasized that a Samaritan represented a servant who pleased God, for a reason.

I think about that at times, and would suggest such contemplation would benefit many of us.

All true but the Good Samaritan parable is not an invitation to open borders or ignoring the crimes of rapists, murderers, etc. Here's a good article on that tactic by the Left:

https://stream.org/hijacking-the-good-samaritan-as-the-patron-saint-of-illegal-immigration/

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I challenge anyone, including you, to name one thing I've attributed to Catholics or Orthodox that isn't true or isn't taught by them, or one thing I've attributed to a poster here that wasn't what they themselves stated as their belief.

---

Exhibit A: Catholics worship Mary
Exhibit B: Catholics believe in works-based salvation

Please cite the paragraph from the Catechism that Catholics do either of these. Please use Catholic definitions of worship and work. Anything else is a distortion of the Catholic Church.

Realitybites said:

---

No, I meant John 3:10. If I had meant 1st John 3:10, I would have said 1st John 3:10.

---

Then, you gave no answer whatsoever. It'd been better if you had quoted 1 John 3:10.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I challenge anyone, including you, to name one thing I've attributed to Catholics or Orthodox that isn't true or isn't taught by them, or one thing I've attributed to a poster here that wasn't what they themselves stated as their belief.

---

Exhibit A: Catholics worship Mary
Exhibit B: Catholics believe in works-based salvation

Please cite the paragraph from the Catechism that Catholics do either of these. Please use Catholic definitions of worship and work. Anything else is a distortion of the Catholic Church.

---

This is a case where you Catholics are simply in denial. Every honest, reasonably intelligent person who isn't led by the Devil to ever read this thread KNOWS that you're saying one thing, but doing and believing another. You guys are like the guy in the example I gave a while back - he has a sexual affair with another woman and then tells his wife that it's just "hyper-friendship". No honest person with at least half a brain buys it. And when Catholics say that salvation must be attained through the performance of sacraments as well as avoiding certain types of sin, that is works-based salvation no matter how you try to justify it. Roman Catholicism engages in pure double speak: "Water baptism is required, but it's not required". "Salvation is by grace... but you have to work for that grace"."We don't worship Mary... but we pray to her for supernatural intervention, bow to and kiss her statue, sings songs to her in church, have prayers that say her name 10 times more than we say God's name, hold festivals for her throughout the year, have prayers that call her "queen of heaven", "god of this world", "our refuge and our hope", "peacemaker between sinners and God", and on and on. And your leaders teach that MARY is the road to God rather than Jesus, and that every good thing we obtain, we obtain through MARY. I'm sorry - only a pure fool can't see this as worship. WAKE UP.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just want to throw something out there that seems relevant to me.

Not going to go Chapter and Verse here, but we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. Now I was brought up to believe, and still do, that the people Jesus took the trouble to mention, actually existed and did what our Lord says they did.

So when we hear about the Good Samaritan, the man who loved his neighbor the way God wants us to love our neighbor, we don't hear even one word about him quoting Scripture, he didn't worry about the doctrine of the man he rescued and paid to recover; indeed we are reminded the man who pleased Christ was a Samaritan, which sect did not believe the same formal teachings Jesus taught ... yet what matters in this case is what the man did.

None of this should be taken to mean that Jesus did not care about doctrine. None of this means that all roads are equally valid. But Jesus emphasized that a Samaritan represented a servant who pleased God, for a reason.

I think about that at times, and would suggest such contemplation would benefit many of us.

---

But then suppose you talk to this Good Samaritan, and you find out that he believes, and teaches, that salvation is by both faith in Jesus and being circumcised. Or that he believes, and teaches, that Mary is the road to God and all good things are obtained through her.

What would you say? Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is a case where you Catholics are simply in denial. Every honest, reasonably intelligent person who isn't led by the Devil to ever read this thread KNOWS that you're saying one thing, but doing and believing another. You guys are like the guy in the example I gave a while back - he has a sexual affair with another woman and then tells his wife that it's just "hyper-friendship". No honest person with at least half a brain buys it. And when Catholics say that salvation must be attained through the performance of sacraments as well as avoiding certain types of sin, that is works-based salvation no matter how you try to justify it. Roman Catholicism engages in pure double speak: "Water baptism is required, but it's not required". "Salvation is by grace... but you have to work for that grace"."We don't worship Mary... but we pray to her for supernatural intervention, bow to and kiss her statue, sings songs to her in church, have prayers that say her name 10 times more than we say God's name, hold festivals for her throughout the year, have prayers that call her "queen of heaven", "god of this world", "our refuge and our hope", "peacemaker between sinners and God", and on and on. And your leaders teach that MARY is the road to God rather than Jesus, and that every good thing we obtain, we obtain through MARY. I'm sorry - only a pure fool can't see this as worship. WAKE UP.

---

I missed the specific quote and definitions from the Catechism in your rambling paragraph.

Anything else is, once again, a misunderstanding on your part.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is a case where you Catholics are simply in denial. Every honest, reasonably intelligent person who isn't led by the Devil to ever read this thread KNOWS that you're saying one thing, but doing and believing another. You guys are like the guy in the example I gave a while back - he has a sexual affair with another woman and then tells his wife that it's just "hyper-friendship". No honest person with at least half a brain buys it. And when Catholics say that salvation must be attained through the performance of sacraments as well as avoiding certain types of sin, that is works-based salvation no matter how you try to justify it. Roman Catholicism engages in pure double speak: "Water baptism is required, but it's not required". "Salvation is by grace... but you have to work for that grace"."We don't worship Mary... but we pray to her for supernatural intervention, bow to and kiss her statue, sings songs to her in church, have prayers that say her name 10 times more than we say God's name, hold festivals for her throughout the year, have prayers that call her "queen of heaven", "god of this world", "our refuge and our hope", "peacemaker between sinners and God", and on and on. And your leaders teach that MARY is the road to God rather than Jesus, and that every good thing we obtain, we obtain through MARY. I'm sorry - only a pure fool can't see this as worship. WAKE UP.

---

I missed the specific quote and definitions from the Catechism in your rambling paragraph.

Anything else is, once again, a misunderstanding on your part.

---

You're asking me to quote an official Roman Catholic source saying that Catholicism commits idolatry. As if they're really going to do that. That's like asking me to quote Planned Parenthood that what they're doing is murdering babies.

You really think that because it's not written anywhere in your catechism that it exonerates you? You worship Mary, just as Planned Parenthood murders babies. It doesn't matter how much they deny it, or what definitions they change to get out of it semantically - it's what they're doing.

The only "misunderstanding" here is your belief that people are stupid enough to buy the BS gaslighting from Roman Catholicism that you don't worship Mary. Call it "rambling" all you want - to any honest, rational person, what I described is clearly and undoubtedly worship. If you don't think so, then you are not honest or rational. That's all there is to it. As if praying to her, bowing to and kissing her statue, etc wasn't enough to show that you're worshiping her, you really have to be completely bewitched by Satan to not see that saying MARY is the road to God and that we obtain all good things through Mary is making Mary your God and Savior over Jesus, and that it is worship of her. Can you really be this blind and foolish?? It is absolutely astounding.

Who is the "All Holy One"? Who else but God, right?

According to Roman Catholicism, Mary is the All Holy One:

"...By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross..." (Catechism 2677)

In their lives and in their death, Roman Catholics "give themselves wholly over to Mary's care". It's straight out of their catechism. And Roman Catholics say they don't worship Mary??

Thanks. Many times you explain your thoughts in a way that, in my opinion, is inoffensive. I often agree with much of what you state; however, for the times I may question a point, your wording is in such a tone that I find myself giving it more thought than if it had been worded more critically. That is not always easy to do.

BUDOS said:

---

That may depend upon what is written in the Book of Life on each of us Just saying.

---

Even after you've been proven wrong about this in the Bible, you double down on it. Whether you're just believing what you want to believe instead of what Scripture teaches, or you're just being passive-aggressive, either way it's a bad sign. If you teach this, then you are a false teacher.

BUDOS said:

---

Thanks. Many times you explain your thoughts in a way that, in my opinion, is inoffensive. I often agree with much of what you state; however, for the times I may question a point, your wording is in such a tone that I find myself giving it more thought than if it had been worded more critically. That is not always easy to do.

---

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid" - Proverbs 12:1

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just want to throw something out there that seems relevant to me.

Not going to go Chapter and Verse here, but we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. Now I was brought up to believe, and still do, that the people Jesus took the trouble to mention, actually existed and did what our Lord says they did.

So when we hear about the Good Samaritan, the man who loved his neighbor the way God wants us to love our neighbor, we don't hear even one word about him quoting Scripture, he didn't worry about the doctrine of the man he rescued and paid to recover; indeed we are reminded the man who pleased Christ was a Samaritan, which sect did not believe the same formal teachings Jesus taught ... yet what matters in this case is what the man did.

None of this should be taken to mean that Jesus did not care about doctrine. None of this means that all roads are equally valid. But Jesus emphasized that a Samaritan represented a servant who pleased God, for a reason.

I think about that at times, and would suggest such contemplation would benefit many of us.

---

But then suppose you talk to this Good Samaritan, and you find out that he believes, and teaches, that salvation is by both faith in Jesus and being circumcised. Or that he believes, and teaches, that Mary is the road to God and all good things are obtained through her.

What would you say? Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?

---

This is the parable of the Good Samaritan, which tells us two things from the start:

1. He was a Samaritan, who conflicted with the Jews, even being taught some things that conflicted with what Jesus taught and did; and

2. His actions pleased God to the point that Christ Himself used him as an example of how we are to act.

This is not about Roman Catholic doctrine, except that Jesus was plainly telling us that we reveal what is in our heart through our actions, not our rules. Consider that the Jews of Jesus' time knew the Law and had a great deal of Scripture and History, yet many lived in the dark of their personal sin and pride.

Now to your last two questions, here is my answer:

" What would you say?"

I have thought and prayed on the matter of the Good Samaritan more than a couple times. As I am a Southern Baptist, I consider faith to be paramount and Scripture makes plain that what is needed for Salvation is first, God's love made manifest in Christ's atonement on our behalf and His example and constant patience with us, and second, our decision to repent our sins, confess them to God and accept Jesus as our Lord, which is reflected in how we live as followers of Christ.

But the example of the Good Samaritan takes wisdom, and not the kind human wit or device can gain for us. I asked God how it is that someone can believe a false teaching yet be pleasing to God. The response was that when I act as much in obedience to Christ as he did, then I may ask again.

I also consider that someone who is brought up in a sect that teaches a false doctrine is not the same as someone who teaches that doctrine.


"Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?"

That is a mean-spirited and unworthy thing to say, and frankly such comments and jibes have caused many here to shun you, BTD.

I mention that as a needed appraisal of your conduct here, but also to explain my own restraint in sometimes choosing not to respond to a post, especially when emotions are heated.

Over the years, I have learned that there is no good purpose in escalating disagreements, especially to making personal attacks. I am far from perfect but I am trying to post for positive purpose and not just to say something, especially to feed an ego.

I'd like to be, in relation to this thread, more like BUDOS in attitude.

Thanks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just want to throw something out there that seems relevant to me.

Not going to go Chapter and Verse here, but we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. Now I was brought up to believe, and still do, that the people Jesus took the trouble to mention, actually existed and did what our Lord says they did.

So when we hear about the Good Samaritan, the man who loved his neighbor the way God wants us to love our neighbor, we don't hear even one word about him quoting Scripture, he didn't worry about the doctrine of the man he rescued and paid to recover; indeed we are reminded the man who pleased Christ was a Samaritan, which sect did not believe the same formal teachings Jesus taught ... yet what matters in this case is what the man did.

None of this should be taken to mean that Jesus did not care about doctrine. None of this means that all roads are equally valid. But Jesus emphasized that a Samaritan represented a servant who pleased God, for a reason.

I think about that at times, and would suggest such contemplation would benefit many of us.

---

But then suppose you talk to this Good Samaritan, and you find out that he believes, and teaches, that salvation is by both faith in Jesus and being circumcised. Or that he believes, and teaches, that Mary is the road to God and all good things are obtained through her.

What would you say? Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?

---

This is the parable of the Good Samaritan, which tells us two things from the start:

1. He was a Samaritan, who conflicted with the Jews, even being taught some things that conflicted with what Jesus taught and did; and

2. His actions pleased God to the point that Christ Himself used him as an example of how we are to act.

This is not about Roman Catholic doctrine, except that Jesus was plainly telling us that we reveal what is in our heart through our actions, not our rules. Consider that the Jews of Jesus' time knew the Law and had a great deal of Scripture and History, yet many lived in the dark of their personal sin and pride.

---

This isn't about Roman Catholic doctrine per se. The point is, what is the benefit of doing something pleasing to God, but have damnable beliefs and errors? Do you believe, for example, that Waco1947 does things to please God? But as you know, he believes, and teaches, outright heresy. So when Waco1947 does things to help the poor, as he as claimed that he does, then even while that pleases God, should you just sit idly by as he teaches his heresy? Or should you stand up for the truth and call it out?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just want to throw something out there that seems relevant to me.

Not going to go Chapter and Verse here, but we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. Now I was brought up to believe, and still do, that the people Jesus took the trouble to mention, actually existed and did what our Lord says they did.

So when we hear about the Good Samaritan, the man who loved his neighbor the way God wants us to love our neighbor, we don't hear even one word about him quoting Scripture, he didn't worry about the doctrine of the man he rescued and paid to recover; indeed we are reminded the man who pleased Christ was a Samaritan, which sect did not believe the same formal teachings Jesus taught ... yet what matters in this case is what the man did.

None of this should be taken to mean that Jesus did not care about doctrine. None of this means that all roads are equally valid. But Jesus emphasized that a Samaritan represented a servant who pleased God, for a reason.

I think about that at times, and would suggest such contemplation would benefit many of us.

---

But then suppose you talk to this Good Samaritan, and you find out that he believes, and teaches, that salvation is by both faith in Jesus and being circumcised. Or that he believes, and teaches, that Mary is the road to God and all good things are obtained through her.

What would you say? Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?

---

Now to your last two questions, here is my answer:

" What would you say?"

I have thought and prayed on the matter of the Good Samaritan more than a couple times. As I am a Southern Baptist, I consider faith to be paramount and Scripture makes plain that what is needed for Salvation is first, God's love made manifest in Christ's atonement on our behalf and His example and constant patience with us, and second, our decision to repent our sins, confess them to God and accept Jesus as our Lord, which is reflected in how we live as followers of Christ.

But the example of the Good Samaritan takes wisdom, and not the kind human wit or device can gain for us. I asked God how it is that someone can believe a false teaching yet be pleasing to God. The response was that when I act as much in obedience to Christ as he did, then I may ask again.

I also consider that someone who is brought up in a sect that teaches a false doctrine is not the same as someone who teaches that doctrine.


"Would you be quiet and say nothing, like you've been prone to do?"

That is a mean-spirited and unworthy thing to say, and frankly such comments and jibes have caused many here to shun you, BTD.

I mention that as a needed appraisal of your conduct here, but also to explain my own restraint in sometimes choosing not to respond to a post, especially when emotions are heated.

Over the years, I have learned that there is no good purpose in escalating disagreements, especially to making personal attacks. I am far from perfect but I am trying to post for positive purpose and not just to say something, especially to feed an ego.

I'd like to be, in relation to this thread, more like BUDOS in attitude.

Thanks.

---

When you asked God whether people in error can please God, did you consider to study Scripture about it? What does Scripture say about it? How did you get your "answer"?

There may be a difference between those who just believe error out of tradition, and those who teach error. But in the end, still, does serious, damnable error please God?

I criticized you, because you are the most prominent purveyor of refusing to answer questions and calling me a "Pharisee" as your avoidant defense mechanism. You wouldn't even call out obvious and egregious Marian idolatry. I think that's reprehensible, especially from a professed Christian, and it deserves heavy criticism. Evidently, your spite is greater than your love of truth and Jesus' glory and honor.

People aren't shunning me because of my "conduct". My "conduct", other than being more firm in my statement of truth, really isn't different from any of you. I have challenged every person here who thinks otherwise to provide an actual example, and still to this date, I have not received an answer. So, that argument is BS. It's merely the go-to reason for you and others to not have to actually contend with what I'm saying. Over and over and over in this thread. You and they shun me, because I'm arguing things you just don't have an answer for, and it's threatening what you want to believe. Naturally, you guys have to resort to ad hominem.

Take on any attitude, emulating anyone that you like. But again - what does it really matter if you have a good attitude, but you are dead wrong about vital issues? I really don't care how you perceive my "attitude". I'm going to tell you the truth. I know the price of that - Jesus told us.

A knee-jerk response, as expected.

I cannot help but wonder what thought you ever give to anyone else's posts?

You seem very much rooted to one very egotistical position.

But to your question about Waco, what do you imagine Christ wants for us?

Do you imagine Christ only cares about those who perfectly, or nearly so, serve Him?

In the parable of the three servants, one served very well, one less so, and one not at all. Note that being less than perfect does not mean you are rejected by Christ.

Waco and I disagree on many subjects, but while I make my opinion known and try to help him improve his ways. I am not his judge and neither are you.