Coke Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

---

Once again, I agree that liberals change the meaning of the bible to fit their narratives (See Talarico), but many PEOPLE do this as well.

Stepping back from politics on this, let's look at something as simple as baptismal regeneration.

I don't want to debate the topic; I want to look at the principles behind the exegesis.

Let's take Catholics out of this conversation for a moment ...

Many protestants believe in baptismal regeneration - Lutherans and the Churches of Christ.
Many protestants reject it - Baptists, Anabaptists, and Non-Denominational Protestants
Many protestants have a nuanced view between the two - Anglicans and Reformed/Presbyterians

The Bible contains verses that explicitly state:

1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism NOW saves you."
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Titus 3:5 - "saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

How do we determine WHO is correct in their interpretation?

---

baptism is based on a greek word that means " fully immerse" , just like the bride does in historic jewish wedding ceremony.

I would say John 3 verse 6 clarifies that birth by water is the fleshly birth and birth by the spirit is the regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We see this played out in the house of Cornelius. Also, we know Simon the sorcerer was water baptized, but clearly did not have the Holy Spirit.

---

A - I stated that "baptism" wasn't truly the discussion topic here, but since you mentioned it ...
B - I didn't mention John 3:5. Rather, I used three other verses that explicitly state baptism DOES something - saves & forgives sins
C - EVERYONE is born of a fleshly birth. It makes no sense that Jesus would say "anyone who is fleshy born."
- Unanimously, the Church fathers that discuss John 3:5, state that Jesus is speaking of baptism.
- The "fleshly birth" interpretation doesn't come about for nearly 1500 years.
D - Your point fails to answer, "WHO gets to determine what John 3:5 means?"
E - Take this Catholic out of the conversation - Why should a Lutheran or Christ of Christ member or Anglican, etc. accept this interpretation?

---

1 peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The appeal to God by claiming repentance and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ save you and you recieve the Holy Spirit. Water baptism alone doesnt, water baptism comes after faith and repentance. Simon the sorcerer is a great example of water baptism without faith and repentance. He was baptized as part of a selfish act to gain power and glory for himself.

John 1:33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Why would Jesus tell nicodemus he needed to be baptized with water when John the baptizer said I baptize with water for repentance but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit?

John 3:5 is written as born again in english but greek allows for an alternative as born from above. Born once of flesh and again of spirit just as it is written in John 3:6, the following verse. This describes Jesus baptism of the Holy Spirit in the second birth. There is no third birth. (Natural birth, water baptism and spirit baptism would be 3 births) no point in scripture do we find reference to 3 births, just 2.

Just as described in Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Scripture always has witnesses to give clarity.

Titus 3:5 The "washing of regeneration" refers to being born again. This renewal work of the Holy Spirit is described as "cleansing" and "purifying" in Ezekiel 36:2527

Acts 2:38 in context again shows the belief that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected to life plus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the 3000 new believers that day..

The order matters: first comes the heart change, then the public declaration through baptism.

I am not arguing against baptism, i think all should be baptized into Christ. I think it can be done by any follower of Christ who is willing and called to baptize others in the name of the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

Side note- 1 peter 19-20 is a shout out to Enoch

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

---

Once again, I agree that liberals change the meaning of the bible to fit their narratives (See Talarico), but many PEOPLE do this as well.

Stepping back from politics on this, let's look at something as simple as baptismal regeneration.

I don't want to debate the topic; I want to look at the principles behind the exegesis.

Let's take Catholics out of this conversation for a moment ...

Many protestants believe in baptismal regeneration - Lutherans and the Churches of Christ.
Many protestants reject it - Baptists, Anabaptists, and Non-Denominational Protestants
Many protestants have a nuanced view between the two - Anglicans and Reformed/Presbyterians

The Bible contains verses that explicitly state:

1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism NOW saves you."
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Titus 3:5 - "saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

How do we determine WHO is correct in their interpretation?

---

baptism is based on a greek word that means " fully immerse" , just like the bride does in historic jewish wedding ceremony.

I would say John 3 verse 6 clarifies that birth by water is the fleshly birth and birth by the spirit is the regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We see this played out in the house of Cornelius. Also, we know Simon the sorcerer was water baptized, but clearly did not have the Holy Spirit.

---

A - I stated that "baptism" wasn't truly the discussion topic here, but since you mentioned it ...
B - I didn't mention John 3:5. Rather, I used three other verses that explicitly state baptism DOES something - saves & forgives sins
C - EVERYONE is born of a fleshly birth. It makes no sense that Jesus would say "anyone who is fleshy born."
- Unanimously, the Church fathers that discuss John 3:5, state that Jesus is speaking of baptism.
- The "fleshly birth" interpretation doesn't come about for nearly 1500 years.
D - Your point fails to answer, "WHO gets to determine what John 3:5 means?"
E - Take this Catholic out of the conversation - Why should a Lutheran or Christ of Christ member or Anglican, etc. accept this interpretation?

---

1 peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The appeal to God by claiming repentance and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ save you and you recieve the Holy Spirit. Water baptism alone doesnt, water baptism comes after faith and repentance. Simon the sorcerer is a great example of water baptism without faith and repentance. He was baptized as part of a selfish act to gain power and glory for himself.

John 1:33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Why would Jesus tell nicodemus he needed to be baptized with water when John the baptizer said I baptize with water for repentance but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit?

John 3:5 is written as born again in english but greek allows for an alternative as born from above. Born once of flesh and again of spirit just as it is written in John 3:6, the following verse. This describes Jesus baptism of the Holy Spirit in the second birth. There is no third birth. (Natural birth, water baptism and spirit baptism would be 3 births) no point in scripture do we find reference to 3 births, just 2.

Just as described in Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Scripture always has witnesses to give clarity.

Titus 3:5 The "washing of regeneration" refers to being born again. This renewal work of the Holy Spirit is described as "cleansing" and "purifying" in Ezekiel 36:2527

Acts 2:38 in context again shows the belief that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected to life plus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the 3000 new believers that day..

The order matters: first comes the heart change, then the public declaration through baptism.

I am not arguing against baptism, i think all should be baptized into Christ. I think it can be done by any follower of Christ who is willing and called to baptize others in the name of the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

Side note- 1 peter 19-20 is a shout out to Enoch

---

Peter was Ministering the Gospel.of the Kingdom.to Israel, NOT the Gospel.of Grace.

Undr the Kingdom Gospel.to Israel, It was Repent, Be Baptized, Accept your Messiah, Jesus.

Under Paul's Gospel of Grace it's Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as the Sacrifice for your sins.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. "
Romans 1:16 KJV

Under grace, the gospel only is what saves, not Baptism.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

On the Contrary, Jesus Himself said that those things were Spiritual, not Physical. So we are, in fact, taking Scripture for what it says. Read the last sentence. It's Spiritual.

Jesus said:

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "
John 6:55-63 KJV

---

And what does spiritual mean?

I'll get back to that.

First, we know the disciples understood that he meant what he said literally because they left immediately after that.

Quote:

---

Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

---

They fully understood what Jesus meant AND they left because of that.

Second, the Greek word for "spirit," pneuma, is not a synonym for symbol. They knew that he was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

This has been a consistent belief for nearly 2000 years. It wasn't challenged until the 16th century.

All your talk about human interpretation, yet you insist everyone here must accept your interpretation.

Do you still not see your error?

4th and Inches said:

---

1 peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The appeal to God by claiming repentance and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ save you and you recieve the Holy Spirit. Water baptism alone doesnt, water baptism comes after faith and repentance. Simon the sorcerer is a great example of water baptism without faith and repentance. He was baptized as part of a selfish act to gain power and glory for himself.

---

Please note that Peter is stating that the water IS the appeal to God for a clean conscience. He is contrasting that to water that just washes away the dirt makes one physically clean.

The bible never says that Simon the sorcerer never HAD faith. That would be an appeal to silence that wouldn't work here. We do know that he tried to obtain the "power" for his own good which was his fall from grace.

4th and Inches said:

---

John 1:33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Why would Jesus tell nicodemus he needed to be baptized with water when John the baptizer said I baptize with water for repentance but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit?

---

Because JtB's baptisms did NOT contain the Holy Spirit. Only baptisms using the Trinitarian formula confer the Holy Spirit.

4th and Inches said:

---

John 3:5 is written as born again in english but greek allows for an alternative as born from above. Born once of flesh and again of spirit just as it is written in John 3:6, the following verse. This describes Jesus baptism of the Holy Spirit in the second birth. There is no third birth. (Natural birth, water baptism and spirit baptism would be 3 births) no point in scripture do we find reference to 3 births, just 2.

---

I never said there was a third birth. One is born the first time, naturally. The second birth is at (water) baptism when we receive the Holy Spirit.

Please note what happens immediately after this section in John 3:22
"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." By the way, this is the only place in all four Gospels where Jesus is described as baptizing.

Just as described in Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Scripture always has witnesses to give clarity.

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Titus 3:5 The "washing of regeneration" refers to being born again. This renewal work of the Holy Spirit is described as "cleansing" and "purifying" in Ezekiel 36:2527

---

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200258 AD): Explicitly quotes Titus 3:5 while arguing that baptism is the instrument of new birth, stating, "the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism..."

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Acts 2:38 in context again shows the belief that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected to life plus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the 3000 new believers that day..

The order matters: first comes the heart change, then the public declaration through baptism.

---

God ALWAYS moves first. We respond to the graces He's given to us.

Having said that, I completely disagree (and so does the bible) that baptism is just "a public declaration." Let's look closely at a couple of passages;

Acts 2:38 - "Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
Notice the structure:

• Repent - interior conversion, turning away from sin
• And be baptized the sacramental act
• For the forgiveness of sins the result
• You will receive the Holy Spirit the gift

Acts 22:16 -

Quote:

---

"Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name."

---

The phrase "have your sins washed away" directly connects the sacramental act of baptism with the removal of sin. This is not symbolic language it is causative language.

4th and Inches said:

---

I am not arguing against baptism, i think all should be baptized into Christ. I think it can be done by any follower of Christ who is willing and called to baptize others in the name of the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

---

I'm glad to hear that. Baptism is the first sacrament that Christians receive. It is one of the three sacraments of Initiation. The other two being Confirmation and Holy Communion (Eucharist)

4th and Inches said:

---

Side note- 1 peter (3) 19-20 is a shout out to Enoch

---

Any allusion to Enoch is a secondary meaning here. Peter's typological language and his main point here showing that Noah's Ark is a prefigurement to water baptism.

Quote:

---

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God

---

He's saying that they were save by water, just like Christ saves us thru our baptism.

Finally, I really do ask these last two questions again, not out of a "gotcha" moment, but with a charitable spirit

1) "WHO gets to determine what John 3:5 means?"
2) Why should a Lutheran or Christ of Christ member or Anglican, etc. accept your interpretation?

Oldbear83 said:

---

All your talk about human interpretation, yet you insist everyone here must accept your interpretation.

Do you still not see your error?

---

Au contraire mon frre!

I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations.

To add to that point, you may have a misunderstanding what the Church expects everyone to accept as HER interpretation.

The Church only definitively "ruled" on a relatively few number of verses in the bible: John 3:5, John 6:53-56, Matt. 16:18, John 20:22-23 & Matthew 18:18, Luke 22:19 & 1 Corinthians 11:24.

Anyone is free to their interpret passages provided their interpretations don't conflict with the bible itself or Church teachings.

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

---

Classy and articulate response. But, hey, you do you.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

---

Classy and articulate response. But, hey, you do you.

---

I did try first for the straight discussion. But you decided to sell your interpretation as doctrine.

GIGO, my friend.

Do you want to try for an honest discussion now, or will you keep playing games?

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

On the Contrary, Jesus Himself said that those things were Spiritual, not Physical. So we are, in fact, taking Scripture for what it says. Read the last sentence. It's Spiritual.

Jesus said:

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "
John 6:55-63 KJV

---

And what does spiritual mean?

I'll get back to that.

First, we know the disciples understood that he meant what he said literally because they left immediately after that.

Quote:

---

Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

---

They fully understood what Jesus meant AND they left because of that.

Second, the Greek word for "spirit," pneuma, is not a synonym for symbol. They knew that he was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

This has been a consistent belief for nearly 2000 years. It wasn't challenged until the 16th century.

---

** Folks, CokeBear and others like him repeatedly rehash the same, defeated arguments and recycle the same defeated talking points, and they're doing it again here. They absolutely refuse to deal with the clear and easy to understand reasoning that clearly shows they're wrong. So I'm addressing this to anyone willing to consider these points with honesty, clarity, and a heart for seeking the truth rather than defending a church at all costs.

The "disciples that left" after Jesus "bread of life" discourse were just people who were following Jesus at the time. They were not THE original twelve. Some of those who left, maybe all of them, included the ones who Jesus had just said weren't true believers (John 6:64). "THE disciples" refers to the original twelve only. They didn't leave. We need to be careful with the language.

And those other "disciples" leaving Jesus doesn't automatically mean that their literal interpretation was correct. This is yet another one of the many non sequiturs that the Roman Catholic Church bases its errant views on. They fallaciously argue that since Jesus allowed them to leave without correcting them, it meant that their literal understanding was correct. But Jesus had specifically told his disciples that he would talk in parables (metaphorically and figuratvely) so the unbelieving people would be "hearing but never understanding" in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Matthew 13). So Jesus had no problem with their leaving with a wrong interpretation. He allowed the disciples to wrongly believed that he was talking about the literal Temple when he said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it", and he never corrected them. He allowed the woman at the well to misinterpret "living water" as actual water, and he never corrected her.

However, in contrast to those who left, to THE original twelve (and now, to US who have their written testimony, i.e. Scripture), Jesus told them "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given". That's why Jesus later explained to the twelve that he was talking in spiritual terms, NOT in literal, physical terms, and why he didn't correct the false thinking of those who left.

***WE KNOW that the original twelve did not believe Jesus was being literal about his flesh and blood - in Acts, they convened in a council, and commanded the Gentile believers to "abstain from blood" - which would be very odd, if they truly did take Jesus literally, and that literally drinking Jesus' blood was absolutely required for salvation. During the Last Supper, Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" even AFTER he declared "This is my blood". And if the Passover bread and wine were literally the flesh and blood of Jesus, the disciples would have been breaking their Law if they consumed it, and Jesus would have sinned by instructing them to; and thus, he would have disqualified himself as the perfect Messiah and the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

Moreover, NOWHERE in Scripture do we see any of the apostles saying anything about having to literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in order to be saved. You would think that something absolutely required for salvation would have been mentioned in clear, explicit terms. Rather, what WAS clear and explicit were the examples of people being saved without eating or drinking a thing (the sinful woman in Luke 7, the thief on the cross, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipian jailer, and the house of Cornelius).

Where Cokebear says the literal interpretation "has been a consistent belief for nearly 2000 years", this may actually be true - a consistently incorrect belief. Where he says that the literal interpretation "wasn't challenged until the 16th century" - that's completely false. Some of you may recall the debate about Augustine (4th century) where I CLEARLY showed that Augustine held to to a symbolic/spiritual view rather than a literalist view. And he was far from being the only one. It is either done out of ignorance or a flat out lie to say that there were no competing views to the literalist view through all of church history. Augustine pretty much said that to "eat Jesus flesh" meant that you believe in him. He clearly and explicitly said that Jesus was being figurative, not literal. These literalist folks, whose traditions are dependent on church history always supporting their side, will flatly deny all the clear and obvious evidence against their view, and attempt a completely ridiculous and laughable argument where they pretty much try to gas light you, essentially telling you to not believe your lying eyes. They have no other choice. They'd rather defend the infallibility, and thus authority, of their Church and will repudiate obvious, easily discernible truth and logic in order to do so. They are trapped in deception.

Folks, the literalist interpretation simply fails in all points - Scripturally, logically, and historically. And yet, the Roman Catholic Church considers transubstantitation something you MUST believe or you go to Hell. Yes, that's right - even if you believe the gospel with all your heart and put your full faith and trust in Jesus for your salvation, even if you never sinned and acted perfectly.... if you don't believe in the literalist interpretation of "this is my body", you still go to Hell. I ask anyone with a rational and honest mind - does this sound like something that actually came from God? Does this sound anything at all like the gospel of Jesus, who said "whosoever believes in me has eternal life"?? According to the Roman Catholic belief, you can truly believe in Jesus - but if you don't believe he was being literal with regard to "eating his flesh", then you still go to Hell. This would make Jesus' statement false, even a lie.

Finally, consider this all-too-important point: ***can we trust the interpretation of a church that officially sanctions and supports this prayer?:

"MARY, you delivered me from Hell, and in your hands I place my salvation; you are the salvation of my soul, and I promise to serve you willingly forever."

Folks, it's absolutely clear.
Open your eyes, and know them by their fruits.
Those who truly belong to Jesus, who are true believers and thus are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, know that what I'm saying here is true.
Thank you for reading, and sorry for the long post. A long list of falsehood and deception requires a long explanation with truth and clarity, unfortunately.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

---

Classy and articulate response. But, hey, you do you.

---

I did try first for the straight discussion. But you decided to sell your interpretation as doctrine.

GIGO, my friend.

Do you want to try for an honest discussion now, or will you keep playing games?

---

Sorry if I adked before, but, are you a Dispensationalist?

All this can be distilled down to this: Obedient faith saves.

Obedient faith confesses and repents.

Obedient faith is baptized.

Obedient finds and attends Christ's church.

Obedient faith fasts and prays.

Obedient faith works to produce fruit.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
- Luke 6:46

Realitybites said:

---

All this can be distilled down to this: Obedient faith saves.

Obedient faith confesses and repents.

Obedient faith is baptized.

Obedient finds and attends Christ's church.

Obedient faith fasts and prays.

Obedient faith works to produce fruit.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
- Luke 6:46

---

What qualifies as "obedient faith"? 10% obedience? 50%? 90%? Perfect obedience? What is the cutoff point?

If we can't know, then this view is false. Because Scripture clearly tells us that we CAN know that we are saved. Your view is just another way of presenting a works-based gospel, and that is why it will always fail. The instant you attach works to the gospel of grace you encounter this inescapable conundrum.

If you got into heaven because of your obedience, then you merited your own salvation, and therefore you have something to "boast" about. But Scripture is explicitly clear that salvation is by grace through faith, NOT works (i.e. obedience), so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Why does this simple and easily discernible concept continue to elude so many of you?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

---

Classy and articulate response. But, hey, you do you.

---

I did try first for the straight discussion. But you decided to sell your interpretation as doctrine.

GIGO, my friend.

Do you want to try for an honest discussion now, or will you keep playing games?

---

I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine.

Please show me where "selling my interpretation", not be "honest" or "playing games."

This comes from a recent Christian resource:
"Jesus chose us to bear fruit. The way to spread Christianity is to be Christian. The way to bring others to Christ is to show them the fruits of the Christian life. Jesus sends us out not so much as to argue others into Christianity, still less to threaten them into it; so to live that its fruits may be so wonderful that others will desire them for themselves."

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

Catholic Church literally means "universal church" but today it is almost exclusively used for one denomination with its HQ in the Vatican. No other group of Christians uses it and none of them recognize the authority of the pope, especially the current or previous ones.

It's a technical distinction but one that matters for clarity.

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

Catholic Church literally means "universal church" but today it is almost exclusively used for one denomination with its HQ in the Vatican. No other group of Christians uses it and none of them recognize the authority of the pope, especially the current or previous ones.

It's a technical distinction but one that matters for clarity.

---

The problem, historian, is the arrogance of any one denomination claiming to be the "true" Church.

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I'm not asking anyone to accept MY interpretation. I am doing my best to present the Church's interpretations."

---

Classy and articulate response. But, hey, you do you.

---

I did try first for the straight discussion. But you decided to sell your interpretation as doctrine.

GIGO, my friend.

Do you want to try for an honest discussion now, or will you keep playing games?

---

Sorry if I adked before, but, are you a Dispensationalist?

---

No, I think that is an interesting theory and good for discussion but has serious flaws.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

No, the word, "Catholic" when capitalized refers to the Catholic Church with the Pope as its leader.

The word, "catholic" with a lower case 'c' refers to the universal church.

Ask anyone - not biased. Ask Google, Bing, Chat GPT, Claude, Microsoft Co-Pilot, etc.

If I'm wrong, I go to your church service with you this Sunday and make a nice donation.

Better yet, go to ANY major city in America ask them, "where is the Catholic church in this town?" If they refer you to ANY other church (Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, non-dom, etc.), I'll give you $1000 to you and your church.

You are confusing colloquialism with definition.

And you are still hiding from your hubris problem, brother.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are confusing colloquialism with definition.

And you are still hiding from your hubris problem, brother.

---

With respect, I suggest you take the plank out of your eye first.

Ask anyone even colloquially what it mean when one refers to the "Catholic" church. I can assure you, 99% will state that it refers to the Catholic Church, not the universal believers.

That's not hubris. That's a fact.

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

Catholic Church literally means "universal church" but today it is almost exclusively used for one denomination with its HQ in the Vatican. No other group of Christians uses it and none of them recognize the authority of the pope, especially the current or previous ones.

It's a technical distinction but one that matters for clarity.

---

The problem, historian, is the arrogance of any one denomination claiming to be the "true" Church.

---

So are you only arguing this because Catholics make the claim to be the "true Church?"

I'm asking a serious question here.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

Catholic Church literally means "universal church" but today it is almost exclusively used for one denomination with its HQ in the Vatican. No other group of Christians uses it and none of them recognize the authority of the pope, especially the current or previous ones.

It's a technical distinction but one that matters for clarity.

---

The problem, historian, is the arrogance of any one denomination claiming to be the "true" Church.

---

So are you only arguing this because Catholics make the claim to be the "true Church?"

I'm asking a serious question here.

---

Read my post. ANY one group claiming to be 'the true Church' is spitting on the Holy Spirit.

" That's not hubris. That's a fact."

That's hubris in print right there.

I admit that I have only read the last few posts, but if there is a passage in the Bible which indicates such a claim I would like to know where it is. My take is that Christ was seeking one church body, not factions. However, Jesus states His requirement for salvation, so let's try not to sweat the small stuff.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I'm presenting Catholic doctrine, not mine."

So you are not a Roman Catholic?

---

I'm Catholic. I'm not sure I understand your point.

---

'Catholic' literally refers to the entire Church, which - brace for it - includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Your post makes even less sense in that context.

---

Catholic Church literally means "universal church" but today it is almost exclusively used for one denomination with its HQ in the Vatican. No other group of Christians uses it and none of them recognize the authority of the pope, especially the current or previous ones.

It's a technical distinction but one that matters for clarity.

---

The problem, historian, is the arrogance of any one denomination claiming to be the "true" Church.

---

So are you only arguing this because Catholics make the claim to be the "true Church?"

I'm asking a serious question here.

---

Read my post. ANY one group claiming to be 'the true Church' is spitting on the Holy Spirit.

---

Read your bolded part one last time in context with what historian even stated.

He flat out told you that usage of the capitalized 'Catholic' is in reference to the Catholic Church "with its HQ in the Vatican."

It appears to me, and maybe some others, that based off your statement, that you refuse to use 'Catholic' when referring to the Catholic Church because it claims to be the "true Church."

In light of his agreement, do you accept that 'Catholic' refers TODAY as the Catholic Church and 'catholic' refers to the universal church?

It's amazing how you can read my posts again, and still miss the point.

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

---

Jesus was/is the human leader of Christianity.

Scripture shows He appointed eleven men as Disciples during His ministry on earth, plus another names to replace Judas Iscariot.

There are also a number of local leaders and missionaries named in the New Testament.

A church was founded in Rome, but Jesus was not a Pope guy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's amazing how you can read my posts again, and still miss the point.

---

I've read it three times. You have evaded my question (again) and my point.

I understand why BTD calls you out for this.

Let's go really slowly. I'll let you ask the first question. I'll answer and ask my question next. If I evade your question, please call me out. However, please allow me to do the same for you.

Ask any topic that you'd like. I'll respond. Please note that my first topic will concern 'catholic/Catholic' discussion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

---

Jesus was/is the human leader of Christianity.

Scripture shows He appointed eleven men as Disciples during His ministry on earth, plus another names to replace Judas Iscariot.

There are also a number of local leaders and missionaries named in the New Testament.

A church was founded in Rome, but Jesus was not a Pope guy.

---

Are you denying what Jesus said in Matt 16:18 that he made Peter the rock on which he would build his church?

What biblical evidence do you have that proves that "Jesus was not a Pope guy?"