It would be helpful in our discussion if you could try to avoid the inane and irrelevant comments, as you put so much superfluous material in your responses that they become damn near difficult to understand or respond to. I feel at times like I am responding to a stream of conscience rant.

Ok, with respect to your position that man is not saved by works, but can be condemned by lack of works, I am having difficulty understanding the difference between these two positions. I get that you believe man cannot be saved by works alone, but it certainly sounds like you believe works play a part in salvation. It at the very least sounds like you are saying some works are necessary to be saved (though I guess as Busy points out, we can never know how much are enough). An explanation here would be helpful.

With respect to "sprinkling," I went back and took a look at my post to try and find out what you meant. It sounds like you are upset over the semantics I used to describe Catholic baptism - sprinkling as opposed to pouring or some other term. Below is the post where I believe I first mentioned sprinkling:

1) Grace not Works: Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you believe that Paul isn't referring to Mosaic law when he refers to works "every time." I apologize for putting words in your mouth. That being the case, when he's not referring to Mosaic law, what is he referencing? For example, what is he referencing in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he says grace alone is sufficient, through faith? And just FYI, what we know of the church in Ephesus is that is was overwhelmingly Gentile.

2) Can you point out for me the passages of scripture that specifically mention attending Mass, being sprinkled, and participating in the Eucharist are required for salvation?

3) How is my interpretation of John 3:16-18 wrong, in your mind?

Ok, let's put aside semantics, and pretend I said pouring, dunking, or whatever other term you prefer to refer to Catholic baptism, ok? Now, if you can answer the questions in the above post, I think that would be very helpful to our discussion. You never provided responses to any of the above.

As for the rest of your comments, respectfully, it's just a bunch of conclusory and unsupported statements. You claim you have done a lot in these discussions you have not. As of yet, there hasn't been a single verse supporting your position that works play a role in salvation. Sure, you've identified some you claim state that, but I've addressed each of them, and pointed out your error.

Your cite to Matthew is a perfect example. Matt 7 simply doesn't support a works-based salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For those who say that works are necessary for salvation (or that non-works will make one lose their salvation), then the obvious and necessary question is this: however you want to quantify or qualify "works", how much of it is needed to gain/not lose salvation? Where is the cutoff point? Considering all the time and effort God and Jesus spent on their effort to save mankind, wouldn't they have made it clearly known where that line is? Wouldn't it behoove them to tell us?

If you're saying that there isn't an exact number, and that it's different for different people, then that brings up two problems: first, how is that just, especially if the person didn't know where the exact line for them was? Secondly, it would mean that no one can ever know whether they've done enough, which means no one can ever have assurance of salvation. But the Bible clearly says that we can. So how is this position tenable?

Do you really think it makes sense that Jesus will allow a believer into Heaven for doing x amount of works, but if they had just done one less work, he would have sent that believer to Hell? Isn't that saying that our works is what ultimate determines our salvation? Wouldn't that just be legalism all over again? So - Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly so we wouldn't have to.... only so he could bind us to a new form of Law/legalism, upon which if we fail, we go to Hell forever? How exactly would this be "Good News"?

---

It is a conundrum.

Mothra said:

---

It would be helpful in our discussion if you could try to avoid the inane and irrelevant comments, as you put so much superfluous material in your responses that they become damn near difficult to understand or respond to. I feel at times like I am responding to a stream of conscience rant.

the issue is you seem to prefer the prose vs succinctness, so i have attempted to communicate to you in a way that works better for you. my attempts to discuss succinctly and enumerate specific topics for you to help expedite the discussion has largely led to you wandering and you not responding to several questions. is what it is.

Ok, with respect to your position that man is not saved by works, but can be condemned by lack of works, I am having difficulty understanding the difference between these two positions. I get that you believe man cannot be saved by works alone, but it certainly sounds like you believe works play a part in salvation. It at the very least sounds like you are saying some works are necessary to be saved (though I guess as Busy points out, we can never know how much are enough). An explanation here would be helpful.

yes of course. now you're getting it. as ive said several times, even the act of your sprinkling or whatever youd like to call it now (see your comments below) and having faith is in and of itself an act so you even would have to admit you require at least 1 work (maybe 2 although i believe you said you dont believe baptism is required for salvation)

With respect to "sprinkling," I went back and took a look at my post to try and find out what you meant. It sounds like you are upset over the semantics I used to describe Catholic baptism - sprinkling as opposed to pouring or some other term. Below is the post where I believe I first mentioned sprinkling:

I am upset at nothing you wrote. I am merely trying to help provide a perspective that I know most Baptists / Protestants dont understand or refuse to consider, possibly to their own detriment (a Catholic would say certainly to their detriment but the Judge shall decide).

the mockery of Christ's baptism and your flippant use of what i'm understanding to be an attempt at a derogatory term when you say "sprinkling" (which occurs nowhere in catechsim for baptism) is not something i'd want to engage in but thats on you to decide and to choose your thoughts and words.

1) Grace not Works: Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you believe that Paul isn't referring to Mosaic law when he refers to works "every time." I apologize for putting words in your mouth. That being the case, when he's not referring to Mosaic law, what is he referencing? For example, what is he referencing in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he says grace alone is sufficient, through faith? And just FYI, what we know of the church in Ephesus is that is was overwhelmingly Gentile.

I've stated many times to the specifics of when he was clearly referring to Mosaic law (circumcision, etc).

Ephesians 2:8-9 is again making the contrast between Jews and Gentiles in this context that Jews who have obeyed Mosaic law are not in a position of boasting or being prideful to Gentiles because theyve somehow earned a special closeness to God as a result of following the mosais law / works

generally the distinction of works (mosaic law) vs good works is made and if you amble on down to ephesians 2:10, it's laid out specifically there and even says "that we should walk in them" (i.e. good works)

Then one must consider James chapter 2 (to name one of many already named several times)

2) Can you point out for me the passages of scripture that specifically mention attending Mass, being sprinkled, and participating in the Eucharist are required for salvation?

1) there is no Biblical requirement to attend Mass explicitly. It did however become tradition in adherence to the 3rd commandment and John 6:53 and when the early Christians in Acts gathered to break bread (i.e the eucharist)

2) Baptism - 1 Corinthians 13:14 makes clear the arguments he is addressing amongst the early Chstians that were boasting of who had baptized them. He even says he was glad he only baptized a couple. Then Matthew 28-19-20:

19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (also would conflict with John 3:16 alone. Maybe in additiona to sola scriptura theres a "sola Johna threesixteena" I'm unaware of?)

3) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.



3) How is my interpretation of John 3:16-18 wrong, in your mind?

i've never said it's wrong. in fact you will find me posting here many times in this thread that it is the very foundation of the catechism of the Catholic faith. What I've understood your position to be thus far is that you can then just stop there and no Catholic or church father etc would believe that. Therein lies the risk (see again all the verses i've posted before and the ones refenfeced in this post as well)

Ok, let's put aside semantics, and pretend I said pouring, dunking, or whatever other term you prefer to refer to Catholic baptism, ok? Now, if you can answer the questions in the above post, I think that would be very helpful to our discussion. You never provided responses to any of the above.

I have, numerous times in one for or another but here we can have it again in a single spot vs scattered across numerous posts so you can no longer say "you never provided responses" (who founded the Baptist church by the way?)

As for the rest of your comments, respectfully, it's just a bunch of conclusory and unsupported statements. You claim you have done a lot in these discussions you have not. As of yet, there hasn't been a single verse supporting your position that works play a role in salvation. Sure, you've identified some you claim state that, but I've addressed each of them, and pointed out your error.

I imagine your argument some day with God where you take the verses I provided and you say "nu uh God, it doesn't say that" and you can see how it goes. The words are there in plain text. Those with eyes and cannot see and such...

Your cite to Matthew is a perfect example. Matt 7 simply doesn't support a works-based salvation.

Matthew 7:13-14 clearly speaks to who receives salvation and while i would never lean on a single verse as you seem to do (John 3:16) at the expense of the rest of the New Testament for the salvation of I and my family's soul, no logical person would suggest simply "sprinkling" (or not if you choose as i believe you said not required but a nice to have i guess) and saying I believe is literally all that is required of you to be on the narrow path. It wouldnt even make even no logical sense given how "few" are on the path He says is required for our salvation. And if you argue "but you dont realize just HOW MUCH I believe", well you have no way of knowing from sola scriptura how much is enough. Quite the risky proposition and of course i hope it works out as I want as many in God's army as possible.

I will never suggest to someone that is all that is required as they live their sinful lives as we all do daily to some degree or another as I've provided countless verses at this point to the contrary.

Maybe this very discourse will come up at one's personal judgement.

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For those who say that works are necessary for salvation (or that non-works will make one lose their salvation), then the obvious and necessary question is this: however you want to quantify or qualify "works", how much of it is needed to gain/not lose salvation? Where is the cutoff point? Considering all the time and effort God and Jesus spent on their effort to save mankind, wouldn't they have made it clearly known where that line is? Wouldn't it behoove them to tell us?

If you're saying that there isn't an exact number, and that it's different for different people, then that brings up two problems: first, how is that just, especially if the person didn't know where the exact line for them was? Secondly, it would mean that no one can ever know whether they've done enough, which means no one can ever have assurance of salvation. But the Bible clearly says that we can. So how is this position tenable?

Do you really think it makes sense that Jesus will allow a believer into Heaven for doing x amount of works, but if they had just done one less work, he would have sent that believer to Hell? Isn't that saying that our works is what ultimate determines our salvation? Wouldn't that just be legalism all over again? So - Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly so we wouldn't have to.... only so he could bind us to a new form of Law/legalism, upon which if we fail, we go to Hell forever? How exactly would this be "Good News"?

---

It is a conundrum.

---

I dont think anyone's argument of if God is fair or not will be of much use at our personal judgement, so i would avoid that line of thinking altogether and knowing we all fall short of the glory of God means we should be vigilent to live out our faith the best of our abilities always.

God knows exactly what we are capable of and for each of us for various reasons, that could be different.

Salvation and the reward of eternal life is not a simple event that happens when one is 9 years old.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

There's even people who's opinion is OSAS and no works required is a thing too. That is their opinion. In the end, they will find out if correct or not. Just a question of time.

---

No works required for salvation is not an opinion, but a clear and concise statement repeated often in scripture. One has to misconstrue the verses in question to arrive at a different conclusion.

---

That's entirely incorrect as has been demonstrated but we can continue to go through it.

Just saying unh uh no or I don't agree with verse 1-20 of examples provided won'tlikely square with the big man upstairs but as you know, He will let you know eventually.

I don't want on my soul telling and teaching people "bro, all you gotta do is have faith and OSAS…you good!"

But is is appealing as an easy way in I guess. It simply ignores all the verses I've already posted and explained that stand in the way of say some here who've said "look, I just do Hohn 3:16….im good" when even from Jesus' own mouth; as I've posted many times in many answers that y'all simply just don't like, said, there is more.

---

You have failed to provide a single verse - and I mean not even one - that say or suggest works are required for salvation. Sure, you've cited a lot of irrelevant verses that you claim say that, but the plain language of the text says nothing of the sort.

Whereas I've give you approximately 20 verses that say exactly what I just stated. Ephesians 2:8-9.

My friend, the only person in danger of hell is the individual that subscribes to a false gospel. Your works are filthy rags to the Lord. Isaiah 64:6. You need to get right with God, and try to understand what he says about grace.

---

Grace is the entire foundation of the Catholic faith. I'm 1 trillion % good on that.

You even say in your own post "sure you've provided a lot of irrelevant verses that claim that" and then you or the devil makes you ignore exactly what the words say.

I'll gladly err on the side I and the 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and Catholics are correct. What is the downside if those billions of Catholics are wrong?
That the erred in teaching those around them that "God's graces saves us and yes you can never earn your way into Heaven (but can certainly commit works or actions that earn your way out), but God expects you to perform the works that demonstrate that faith to the best of their ability and here's 20ish verses that attest to it explicitly"

Only a fool would say yeah but you don't have to cuz….grace…so live your life as a temporal person doing as you please and performing no works cuz bro you goooooood, you gots the grace

Now traditional tells us every apostle was killed for their belief. I know y'all don't do tradition but assuming that's correct, if the people walking right next to Jesus and heard his own voice in their ears understood all you had to do was "get sprinkled" as you say and "believe in your heart and you'll have eternal life" why would they possibly have done that? They could have disbanded and just awaited for God to call them to eternity in Heaven with him. What fools they were to endure all that pain and be murdered for it. If only they hadn't misunderstood. Tsk tsk

Wow what a scary gamble. Not even Pascal was willing to take that gamble.

Here's a great video from a former Protestant that saw the light who maybe can better explain it in a way you can understand



He also provides great context to the verses you're misunderstanding either through stubbornness or whatever it may be which even as the Bible explicitly says, goes against sola scriptura and is why Pastor Robert can't just have a desire to read the words of the Bible in English and make as much money as possible peddling his opinions to people that will show up and line his pockets buying his books etc.

Also fascinating that we've been discussing this for weeks and this video was posted 3 days ago and you're seeing it on the 3rd day. Fascinating

---

What is danger with erring on the side of a gospel message contrary to the Gospels? That you have to continue to engage in work after work to not lose your salvation?

Well, among other things, it teaches a false and heretical Gospel. Indeed, it is not the Gospel, as it gets wrong one of the central tenets of the Christian faith - the idea that works are needed to either attain (or keep) one's salvation. That is not the message of Christ in the Gospels. It's not even Christian.

In short, it is leading people down a primrose path regarding salvation and Christ's grace. Any message that takes away or adds to Christ's message of grace is dangerous.

---

It is more dangerous to say zero works are needed. Just "sprinkle" And say "I believe". That's what you believe no?

I have you about 20 verses, many from the mouth of that completely contradict your position.

Again I ask, why even have a pastor Robert sermon if all he needs to tell you is John 3;'16?

That in and of itself contradicts your belief. There's nothing else you need. Why complicate it with a single additional thing since it's all so unnecessary. Just John 3:16

Those silly fool apostles all died treacherous deaths when they could have gone off and fished because "they believed" and died old men instead of being crucified upside down and such

---

No, you did not provide anything of the sort. None of the verses you provided plainly stated works are necessary for salvation. Not a single one.

They said works are an outcropping of faith, and something God has planned for us. None of them mentioned them as a requirement for salvation.

And that is what you continue to get wrong and falsely state. You maintain a lie.

---

Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.

---

This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??

I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.

---

Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.

---

Ahahhahahaha. Textbook response(s) if someone that has lost the argument. Total deflections. Moving the goal post at every turn. Completely ignoring the points and not answering the questions. Still never once answered my original questions. Hopefully the teaching will get thru the stubbornness.

Now your position is "I never said works don't matter" and ""well we don't live a life of sin" lol as if you could ever measure something so subjective. You realize that a single sin is too many and represents a life of sin? In fact you and we were born with it.

Again the Protestants arguing that it's all so simple, just "sprinkle" which you did indeed say and "believe" which of course is invalidated by many verses

Did you watch the video of your former Protestant compadre? It articulates it very clearly.

You could tell him "you don't have to sprinkle" (wow a blasphemy in and of itself ti mock Jesus' baptism that way so smugly) and just believe and you'd get the full on eye roll and an onslaught of verses to the contrary in plain English, Greek or Hebrew

You still have never proven a logical reason the commands are not required. And ofmcourse even the 10 commandments are a great example yet you believe you're not required to do them

So many led astray.

Never seen a poster in this or any board so Often wrong but never in doubt….until the end

Watch the video. Learn. Be enlightened. Before it's too late.

---

Please quote the post where I said or suggested works don't matter. Let me help you: it doesn't exist. But good luck!

Again, for the like the tenth time, what I said is works don't save us. I've consistently said works are important and an outcropping of our faith. But they don't save us. The Bible is very consistent on this point. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping that point.

I also never said that one must be sprinkled. I was raised Baptist. I believe in dunking not sprinkling. But again, show me where I said one must be sprinkled. Again, good luck!

I watched your video. Not sure what point you thought you were making by it. There is so much error in this guys position.

You seem like a nice guy but I think you're either dealing with an issue with your mental faculties or so brainwashed you aren't capable of a logical and adult discussion.

---

Whenever anyone starts going to the "mental faculties" stuff they've really completely lost the argument. Lol

---

Or, the person really does have mental issue.

Interesting way to "win" the argument, though - act mental, then when you're called out on it, claim "victory" by ad hominem. I have to say, it's unique. I don't think that's ever been tried here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For those who say that works are necessary for salvation (or that non-works will make one lose their salvation), then the obvious and necessary question is this: however you want to quantify or qualify "works", how much of it is needed to gain/not lose salvation? Where is the cutoff point? Considering all the time and effort God and Jesus spent on their effort to save mankind, wouldn't they have made it clearly known where that line is? Wouldn't it behoove them to tell us?

If you're saying that there isn't an exact number, and that it's different for different people, then that brings up two problems: first, how is that just, especially if the person didn't know where the exact line for them was? Secondly, it would mean that no one can ever know whether they've done enough, which means no one can ever have assurance of salvation. But the Bible clearly says that we can. So how is this position tenable?

Do you really think it makes sense that Jesus will allow a believer into Heaven for doing x amount of works, but if they had just done one less work, he would have sent that believer to Hell? Isn't that saying that our works is what ultimate determines our salvation? Wouldn't that just be legalism all over again? So - Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly so we wouldn't have to.... only so he could bind us to a new form of Law/legalism, upon which if we fail, we go to Hell forever? How exactly would this be "Good News"?

---

I'm still waiting to get an answer to my question. Particularly from those here that were most adamant about works being required for salvation. Why so quiet all of the sudden? If you can't answer this, then shouldn't you re-examine your beliefs? Or are you just going to do what people around here normally do - ignore it, then let some time go by and then come back and repeat what you've been saying all over again, pretending nothing happened? Are you all really guided by what is true, or are you just interested in preserving your preferred belief system at all costs? If so, then you're really not different from any heretic or crazy liberal in this forum.

the issue is you seem to prefer the prose vs succinctness, so i have attempted to communicate to you in a way that works better for you. my attempts to discuss succinctly and enumerate specific topics for you to help expedite the discussion has largely led to you wandering and you not responding to several questions. is what it is.

No, I prefer succinctness. The problem is, you constantly stray off topic into, respectfully, what is often times a long-winded and stream of conscience diatribe that more often than not devolves into stereotypes you hold about Protestants - as if we are all some monolithic group. If you could stay on topic, and stay succinct, that would most definitely lead to a more productive discussion.

yes of course. now you're getting it. as ive said several times, even the act of your sprinkling or whatever youd like to call it now (see your comments below) and having faith is in and of itself an act so you even would have to admit you require at least 1 work (maybe 2 although i believe you said you dont believe baptism is required for salvation)

Do you believe I believe that baptism is required for salvation? That appears to be your assumption, based on this comment.

I think I've said this ad nauseum on this thread, but no, baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation. See the thief on the cross. Indeed, as scripture makes clear, all that is required is faith and repentance. I don't believe that to be a human act, but instead divine intervention in a person's life by the Holy Spirit.

I am upset at nothing you wrote. I am merely trying to help provide a perspective that I know most Baptists / Protestants dont understand or refuse to consider, possibly to their own detriment (a Catholic would say certainly to their detriment but the Judge shall decide).

the mockery of Christ's baptism and your flippant use of what i'm understanding to be an attempt at a derogatory term when you say "sprinkling" (which occurs nowhere in catechsim for baptism) is not something i'd want to engage in but thats on you to decide and to choose your thoughts and words.

I would submit that the only mockery on this thread is the mockery of Christ's work on the cross, and the belief that our human acts are anything more than filthy rags to God. The idea that his grace and work on the cross isn't enough, and that we must perform works to keep our salvation, is the only mockery.

I've stated many times to the specifics of when he was clearly referring to Mosaic law (circumcision, etc).

Ephesians 2:8-9 is again making the contrast between Jews and Gentiles in this context that Jews who have obeyed Mosaic law are not in a position of boasting or being prideful to Gentiles because theyve somehow earned a special closeness to God as a result of following the mosais law / works

generally the distinction of works (mosaic law) vs good works is made and if you amble on down to ephesians 2:10, it's laid out specifically there and even says "that we should walk in them" (i.e. good works)

As I have also repeatedly pointed out, there simply is no scriptural or historical support for this position. The church in Ephesus was primarily gentile. When there was division in a church, Paul spoke to it directly, without beating around the bush. The idea that he was speaking to Jews here, when the vast majority of the church was gentile, is simply an adding to scripture in order to support a particular theological viewpoint.

Then one must consider James chapter 2 (to name one of many already named several times)

James Chapter 2 is very consistent with Paul's consistent teachings on grace. At no point does James state or suggest that works are required to keep from losing one's salvation.

1) there is no Biblical requirement to attend Mass explicitly. It did however become tradition in adherence to the 3rd commandment and John 6:53 and when the early Christians in Acts gathered to break bread (i.e the eucharist)

So you believe church attendance is not a prerequisite to salvation? If so, I am glad to hear we agree on something.

2) Baptism - 1 Corinthians 13:14 makes clear the arguments he is addressing amongst the early Chstians that were boasting of who had baptized them. He even says he was glad he only baptized a couple.

1 Cor. 13:14 does not address baptism, much less state it is a prerequisite to salvation.

Then Matthew 28-19-20:

19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Indeed, we are called to preach the good news and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But where here does it state that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation, as opposed to an act of obedience and an outward sign to the world of the change that has occurred within us?

(also would conflict with John 3:16 alone. Maybe in additiona to sola scriptura theres a "sola Johna threesixteena" I'm unaware of?)

Interesting, So you believe scripture is fallible and not inerrant? I am surprised that a Catholic would hold this view. So I take it, you just don't believe John 3:16-18?

3) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

Yet, once again, the verse is missing the part about taking in the part of the Eucharist being a prerequisite to salvation. It also misses what Christ is talking about here?
=
i've never said it's wrong. in fact you will find me posting here many times in this thread that it is the very foundation of the catechism of the Catholic faith. What I've understood your position to be thus far is that you can then just stop there and no Catholic or church father etc would believe that. Therein lies the risk (see again all the verses i've posted before and the ones refenfeced in this post as well)

What do you mean by, stop there? Do you believe that the Christian is the dog that can go back to his vomit? Or is he changed by his encounter with Christ? Do you believe I am saying that one can simply pray a prayer and then go live whatever life they want?

To be clear, I am not saying that. The Christian is a changed man. He can't go backwards and partake in the things he partook in before. He cannot dive head first into sin. Otherwise, he wasn't a Christian to begin with.

I think this is your main issue with my belief. You seem to think I believe once a person truly converts, he can go do anything he wants - a get out of jail card so to speak. I have never said or suggested anything of the sort.

I have, numerous times in one for or another but here we can have it again in a single spot vs scattered across numerous posts so you can no longer say "you never provided responses" (who founded the Baptist church by the way?)

We will agree to disagree. You do cite verses you suggest support your positions, but upon closer examination, as with the verses above, what we instead find is that the verses don't state what you claim they do, and they certainly don't support your theology.

I will never suggest to someone that is all that is required as they live their sinful lives as we all do daily to some degree or another as I've provided countless verses at this point to the contrary.

This is unfortunately you misunderstanding once again what I've said, as I suspected. I've never said or suggested one can go live a life of sin after they've been saved. That is impossible if one is truly saved.

Mothra said:

---

the issue is you seem to prefer the prose vs succinctness, so i have attempted to communicate to you in a way that works better for you. my attempts to discuss succinctly and enumerate specific topics for you to help expedite the discussion has largely led to you wandering and you not responding to several questions. is what it is.

No, I prefer succinctness. The problem is, you constantly stray off topic into, respectfully, what is often times a long-winded and stream of conscience diatribe that more often than not devolves into stereotypes you hold about Protestants - as if we are all some monolithic group. If you could stay on topic, and stay succinct, that would most definitely lead to a more productive discussion.

yes of course. now you're getting it. as ive said several times, even the act of your sprinkling or whatever youd like to call it now (see your comments below) and having faith is in and of itself an act so you even would have to admit you require at least 1 work (maybe 2 although i believe you said you dont believe baptism is required for salvation)

Do you believe I believe that baptism is required for salvation? That appears to be your assumption, based on this comment.

I think I've said this ad nauseum on this thread, but no, baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation. See the thief on the cross. Indeed, as scripture makes clear, all that is required is faith and repentance. I don't believe that to be a human act, but instead divine intervention in a person's life by the Holy Spirit.

I am upset at nothing you wrote. I am merely trying to help provide a perspective that I know most Baptists / Protestants dont understand or refuse to consider, possibly to their own detriment (a Catholic would say certainly to their detriment but the Judge shall decide).

the mockery of Christ's baptism and your flippant use of what i'm understanding to be an attempt at a derogatory term when you say "sprinkling" (which occurs nowhere in catechsim for baptism) is not something i'd want to engage in but thats on you to decide and to choose your thoughts and words.

I would submit that the only mockery on this thread is the mockery of Christ's work on the cross, and the belief that our human acts are anything more than filthy rags to God. The idea that his grace and work on the cross isn't enough, and that we must perform works to keep our salvation, is the only mockery.

I've stated many times to the specifics of when he was clearly referring to Mosaic law (circumcision, etc).

Ephesians 2:8-9 is again making the contrast between Jews and Gentiles in this context that Jews who have obeyed Mosaic law are not in a position of boasting or being prideful to Gentiles because theyve somehow earned a special closeness to God as a result of following the mosais law / works

generally the distinction of works (mosaic law) vs good works is made and if you amble on down to ephesians 2:10, it's laid out specifically there and even says "that we should walk in them" (i.e. good works)

As I have also repeatedly pointed out, there simply is no scriptural or historical support for this position. The church in Ephesus was primarily gentile. When there was division in a church, Paul spoke to it directly, without beating around the bush. The idea that he was speaking to Jews here, when the vast majority of the church was gentile, is simply an adding to scripture in order to support a particular theological viewpoint.

Then one must consider James chapter 2 (to name one of many already named several times)

James Chapter 2 is very consistent with Paul's consistent teachings on grace. At no point does James state or suggest that works are required to keep from losing one's salvation.

1) there is no Biblical requirement to attend Mass explicitly. It did however become tradition in adherence to the 3rd commandment and John 6:53 and when the early Christians in Acts gathered to break bread (i.e the eucharist)

So you believe church attendance is not a prerequisite to salvation? If so, I am glad to hear we agree on something.

2) Baptism - 1 Corinthians 13:14 makes clear the arguments he is addressing amongst the early Chstians that were boasting of who had baptized them. He even says he was glad he only baptized a couple.

1 Cor. 13:14 does not address baptism, much less state it is a prerequisite to salvation.

Then Matthew 28-19-20:

19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Indeed, we are called to preach the good news and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But where here does it state that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation, as opposed to an act of obedience and an outward sign to the world of the change that has occurred within us?

(also would conflict with John 3:16 alone. Maybe in additiona to sola scriptura theres a "sola Johna threesixteena" I'm unaware of?)

Interesting, So you believe scripture is fallible and not inerrant? I am surprised that a Catholic would hold this view. So I take it, you just don't believe John 3:16-18?

3) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

Yet, once again, the verse is missing the part about taking in the part of the Eucharist being a prerequisite to salvation. It also misses what Christ is talking about here?
=
i've never said it's wrong. in fact you will find me posting here many times in this thread that it is the very foundation of the catechism of the Catholic faith. What I've understood your position to be thus far is that you can then just stop there and no Catholic or church father etc would believe that. Therein lies the risk (see again all the verses i've posted before and the ones refenfeced in this post as well)

What do you mean by, stop there? Do you believe that the Christian is the dog that can go back to his vomit? Or is he changed by his encounter with Christ? Do you believe I am saying that one can simply pray a prayer and then go live whatever life they want?

To be clear, I am not saying that. The Christian is a changed man. He can't go backwards and partake in the things he partook in before. He cannot dive head first into sin. Otherwise, he wasn't a Christian to begin with.

I think this is your main issue with my belief. You seem to think I believe once a person truly converts, he can go do anything he wants - a get out of jail card so to speak. I have never said or suggested anything of the sort.

I have, numerous times in one for or another but here we can have it again in a single spot vs scattered across numerous posts so you can no longer say "you never provided responses" (who founded the Baptist church by the way?)

We will agree to disagree. You do cite verses you suggest support your positions, but upon closer examination, as with the verses above, what we instead find is that the verses don't state what you claim they do, and they certainly don't support your theology.

I will never suggest to someone that is all that is required as they live their sinful lives as we all do daily to some degree or another as I've provided countless verses at this point to the contrary.

This is unfortunately you misunderstanding once again what I've said, as I suspected. I've never said or suggested one can go live a life of sin after they've been saved. That is impossible if one is truly saved.

---

To keep it pithy for you, clearly you don't understand what "faith" is in the original text

you suggest Christ died on the cross, you just have to believe, and youre on the narrow path and go to Heaven (dirty rags and some such and of course no baptism required).

Nothing you can do will undo that and then some pretzel logic that if you do later undo it (even though you believe you can't) then you never really did it to begin with and just fooled yourself.

Correct? If not please clarify. Let's keep it very simple and pithy so you remain focused point by point.

*and of course you realize there's nothing to support this contortion of the Christian faith before Martin Luther

Adding back in a question youve not answered, do you believe you are required to follow the commandments? Is obediance required or simply faith? Show your work

Some comments from a church father for tonight:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, in Chapter 8 of his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written around 107 AD, writes: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Crazy to think this was written almost 1700 years ago:

Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of 'perfect hatreds towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there wil remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate.