You have to acquaint yourself with the usual Roman Catholic double-talk: salvation by grace that you have to work for; God binds us to sacraments that He is not bounded by; an absolute necessity with caveats... dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
14,117 Views |
419 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's not what Catholics believe. A person who desires baptism, even implicitly, is not condemned just because they have no opportunity.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
Where did Christ make it clear that water baptism was unnecessary?
Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Sam Lowry said:No.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Sam Lowry said:Communion is not an absolute necessity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Sam Lowry said:Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved.Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The belief that you must be water baptized or you don't go to heaven is a Catholic/Orthodox belief, not a Protestant one. That's why Catholics/Orthodox believe in infant baptism.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.Fre3dombear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Fre3dombear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?Realitybites said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Anyway, curious everyone's thoughts ... realize much of worship since the Psalms is man-made and we all have opinions. Wish there was a way to keep the best of innovation and the best of the past.
Orthopraxy has entered the chat.
Innovation *is* the problem. There is no best of it. What you end up in is a perpeual cycle cultural compromise in which the faith once delivered to the saints is diluted to the point of becoming moralistic therapeutic deism.
Ask yourself, if Saint Paul was to walk into your service, would he recognize the worship portion of the service as a Christian? The communion service at all? Or would he think he was in some pagan temple on Mars Hill?
What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?If this is what you believe, then you most certainly should reject the teaching of icon veneration by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, among many others, like praying to Mary and the saints.Quote:
Personally I generally think when we get our judgement God will say "I made it so easy and yet y'all complicated all of it"
I'd prefer to try to follow in the footsteps of those that walked with Jesus and founded the early church than guess at some "innovations" that were come up with 1000 or more years after Jesus walked the earth.
Now if innovation means how best to try to bring people to Christ, we'll, we all know Jesus himself was a huge innovator for his day as it is written.
Why would praying to the mother of God be an issue or praying to a saint when you'd ask your lowly mortal beer buddy to pray for a sick relative? That's an odd take. Good luck.
We ask other believers and brothers in Christ to pray for us because they are 1) believers; and 2) alive. See James 5:16.
Praying to a long dead mortal is like praying to your long dead drinking buddy. It's worthless.
Well a whole ton of context on purgatory and many verses in revelation etc state otherwise
But at worst it's a waste of time and at best….
@mothra - if you have lost a parent or a grandparent etc, you've never prayed for them after their passing or asked them to pray for you or look out for you?
That'd be impressive to stick to one's guns if so. I did have a protestant buddy of mine tell me if someone hadn't been baptized they couldn't go to heaven. I said so what age do you baptize? He said of course when they feel called or generally around 8-12. I said God forbid your son is killed when he chases a ball into the street at the age of say 4. Where does he go?
His jaw dropped. Then I got no answer.
In the end many things we don't "know" definitively and of course so much deoends upon faith but it is interesting to see how the newer denominations reason things out vs the reasoning of the Catholic and orthodox faiths and makes for good discussion
So when I ask them what happens to the person who believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but dies before they are water baptized, they too drop their jaws, or, their answer either completely contradicts their belief or completely contradicts Scripture.
Yes
Christ said the the theft next to him that "today you will be with me in paradise"
Obviously the theft had not been baptized or probably really even understood Christ's divinity
He was still saved
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Sam Lowry said:I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's not what Catholics believe. A person who desires baptism, even implicitly, is not condemned just because they have no opportunity.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
Where did Christ make it clear that water baptism was unnecessary?
They'll say what about the person that never heard or knew of baptism? Then we get some gobbledygook story about a tribe in Africa that knew "knew" jesus but didn't know his name so throw in yet another random straw man.
I guess in an intellectual sense it could be interesting conversation but I've been trying to keep It to the things that would affect an average Joe trying to follow the 15 straw men lobbed into this thread by the protesters
It's Catholicism that teaches that someone in Africa "knows" Jesus not by name but by unknowingly being aligned with him. Pope Francis pretty much says that very thing. You're Catholic, here defending Catholicism, and you're bashing your own creed. You really are one confused fella.Fre3dombear said:Sam Lowry said:I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's not what Catholics believe. A person who desires baptism, even implicitly, is not condemned just because they have no opportunity.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
Where did Christ make it clear that water baptism was unnecessary?
They'll say what about the person that never heard or knew of baptism? Then we get some gobbledygook story about a tribe in Africa that knew "knew" jesus but didn't know his name so throw in yet another random straw man.
I guess in an intellectual sense it could be interesting conversation but I've been trying to keep It to the things that would affect an average Joe trying to follow the 15 straw men lobbed into this thread by the protesters
I would suggest being more lawyerly and less legalistic. Read the Old Testament. Like any wise lawgiver, God has always issued commands that applied to some people, places, or situations and not others. The idea that he's unbound by the sacraments isn't difficult to understand.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You have to acquaint yourself with the usual Roman Catholic double-talk: salvation by grace that you have to work for; God binds us to sacraments that He is not bounded by; an absolute necessity with caveats... dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
And by the way, when I say God has "always" issued such commands, I mean it's always been a thing that he's done. I don't mean he's always done it in every single instance. So let's not open that debate, please.
Lawyers twist and turn things to get the end result they want. I really don't think God wants us to do that with His Word. Regarding Roman Catholicism, that's exactly the problem. They start with the conclusion, and then find biblical support by being lawyerly when they have to, and being legalistic when they have to. It's a pick and choose hermaneutic.Sam Lowry said:I would suggest being more lawyerly and less legalistic. Read the Old Testament. Like any wise lawgiver, God has always issued commands that applied to some people, places, or situations and not others. The idea that he's unbound by the sacraments isn't difficult to understand.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You have to acquaint yourself with the usual Roman Catholic double-talk: salvation by grace that you have to work for; God binds us to sacraments that He is not bounded by; an absolute necessity with caveats... dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
And by the way, when I say God has "always" issued such commands, I mean it's always been a thing that he's done. I don't mean he's always done it in every single instance. So let's not open that debate, please.
God can not simultaneously bind us to sacraments, while being unbound by them Himself. If God is unbound to where He can exempt someone from the sacraments, then we are never truly bound by them.
"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If God is unbound to where He can exempt someone from the sacraments, then we are never truly bound by them.Sam Lowry said:I would suggest being more lawyerly and less legalistic. Read the Old Testament. Like any wise lawgiver, God has always issued commands that applied to some people, places, or situations and not others. The idea that he's unbound by the sacraments isn't difficult to understand.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You have to acquaint yourself with the usual Roman Catholic double-talk: salvation by grace that you have to work for; God binds us to sacraments that He is not bounded by; an absolute necessity with caveats... dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
And by the way, when I say God has "always" issued such commands, I mean it's always been a thing that he's done. I don't mean he's always done it in every single instance. So let's not open that debate, please.
Yikes. Man seeing some hubris toward God in this thread.
Sorry, I'm not seeing the part where this meme shows I'm wrong.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If God is unbound to where He can exempt someone from the sacraments, then we are never truly bound by them.Sam Lowry said:I would suggest being more lawyerly and less legalistic. Read the Old Testament. Like any wise lawgiver, God has always issued commands that applied to some people, places, or situations and not others. The idea that he's unbound by the sacraments isn't difficult to understand.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You have to acquaint yourself with the usual Roman Catholic double-talk: salvation by grace that you have to work for; God binds us to sacraments that He is not bounded by; an absolute necessity with caveats... dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
And by the way, when I say God has "always" issued such commands, I mean it's always been a thing that he's done. I don't mean he's always done it in every single instance. So let's not open that debate, please.
A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingBusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Sam Lowry said:No.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Sam Lowry said:Communion is not an absolute necessity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Sam Lowry said:Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved.Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The belief that you must be water baptized or you don't go to heaven is a Catholic/Orthodox belief, not a Protestant one. That's why Catholics/Orthodox believe in infant baptism.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.Fre3dombear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Fre3dombear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?Realitybites said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Anyway, curious everyone's thoughts ... realize much of worship since the Psalms is man-made and we all have opinions. Wish there was a way to keep the best of innovation and the best of the past.
Orthopraxy has entered the chat.
Innovation *is* the problem. There is no best of it. What you end up in is a perpeual cycle cultural compromise in which the faith once delivered to the saints is diluted to the point of becoming moralistic therapeutic deism.
Ask yourself, if Saint Paul was to walk into your service, would he recognize the worship portion of the service as a Christian? The communion service at all? Or would he think he was in some pagan temple on Mars Hill?
What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?If this is what you believe, then you most certainly should reject the teaching of icon veneration by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, among many others, like praying to Mary and the saints.Quote:
Personally I generally think when we get our judgement God will say "I made it so easy and yet y'all complicated all of it"
I'd prefer to try to follow in the footsteps of those that walked with Jesus and founded the early church than guess at some "innovations" that were come up with 1000 or more years after Jesus walked the earth.
Now if innovation means how best to try to bring people to Christ, we'll, we all know Jesus himself was a huge innovator for his day as it is written.
Why would praying to the mother of God be an issue or praying to a saint when you'd ask your lowly mortal beer buddy to pray for a sick relative? That's an odd take. Good luck.
We ask other believers and brothers in Christ to pray for us because they are 1) believers; and 2) alive. See James 5:16.
Praying to a long dead mortal is like praying to your long dead drinking buddy. It's worthless.
Well a whole ton of context on purgatory and many verses in revelation etc state otherwise
But at worst it's a waste of time and at best….
@mothra - if you have lost a parent or a grandparent etc, you've never prayed for them after their passing or asked them to pray for you or look out for you?
That'd be impressive to stick to one's guns if so. I did have a protestant buddy of mine tell me if someone hadn't been baptized they couldn't go to heaven. I said so what age do you baptize? He said of course when they feel called or generally around 8-12. I said God forbid your son is killed when he chases a ball into the street at the age of say 4. Where does he go?
His jaw dropped. Then I got no answer.
In the end many things we don't "know" definitively and of course so much deoends upon faith but it is interesting to see how the newer denominations reason things out vs the reasoning of the Catholic and orthodox faiths and makes for good discussion
So when I ask them what happens to the person who believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but dies before they are water baptized, they too drop their jaws, or, their answer either completely contradicts their belief or completely contradicts Scripture.
Yes
Christ said the the theft next to him that "today you will be with me in paradise"
Obviously the theft had not been baptized or probably really even understood Christ's divinity
He was still saved
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
I'm seeing some frankly bizarre and unserious straw men in this thread as I've come back to it
Things along the line of some type of I guess moral equivalency that goes like this (with a little poetic license, but more creativity than some things posted so far here)
I am a Protestant. I don't believe in John 6:53. While I do take communion on occasion when they pass around some bread and grape juice 1) we don't bless it as instructed and 2) I don't believe it is transubstantiated as body blood divinity and soul of my Lord Jesus Christ. I think it's silly and doesn't matter.
Besides, if that did matter, I guess God is therefore sending every aborted baby, that i believe has a soul,
to hell because that baby never took communion and Catholics say if you don't take communion believing in transubstanciation, you're going to hell.
This bizarre logic and reasoning, if taught to people that buy into it, will have dire consequences to their souls
Can we try to just keep things more commonplace at first before diving into the one single person in the history of humanity that died and went to Paradise on the cross next to Jesus? Or the random tribe in Africa that knows of Jesus but not his name? Or the Pygmy tribe in Brazil that doesn't know of Jesus nor his name?
These straw men are of such de minimus risk to the topic, it's really boggging down the otherwise higher quality conversation
Things along the line of some type of I guess moral equivalency that goes like this (with a little poetic license, but more creativity than some things posted so far here)
I am a Protestant. I don't believe in John 6:53. While I do take communion on occasion when they pass around some bread and grape juice 1) we don't bless it as instructed and 2) I don't believe it is transubstantiated as body blood divinity and soul of my Lord Jesus Christ. I think it's silly and doesn't matter.
Besides, if that did matter, I guess God is therefore sending every aborted baby, that i believe has a soul,
to hell because that baby never took communion and Catholics say if you don't take communion believing in transubstanciation, you're going to hell.
This bizarre logic and reasoning, if taught to people that buy into it, will have dire consequences to their souls
Can we try to just keep things more commonplace at first before diving into the one single person in the history of humanity that died and went to Paradise on the cross next to Jesus? Or the random tribe in Africa that knows of Jesus but not his name? Or the Pygmy tribe in Brazil that doesn't know of Jesus nor his name?
These straw men are of such de minimus risk to the topic, it's really boggging down the otherwise higher quality conversation
Jesus instructed his followers to do it "in remembrance" of him, not as an ongoing, re-presented sacrifice.Sam Lowry.Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved. said:A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingQuote:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Quote:No.Quote:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Quote:Communion is not an absolute necessity.Quote:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Quote:
Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."breadflesh.
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
The only "knowing rejection" that condemns a person is the knowing rejection of Jesus. A person who fully believes in and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation is not condemned to Hell because they reject the eating of a certain bread and drinking of a certain wine. That is relegating the entirety of salvation to the ingestion of physical substance. We KNOW this is not true according to the New Testament, and it's even completely ridiculous to believe that.
The life of Christ that we are given, is the same life that gives us eternal life, and is the same life we have in heaven. Jesus clearly says the life he gives us is "eternal". We are not given two sets of "lives". Why the need for another life when the life he gave was already eternal? This is a very strange, foreign concept to the Bible's gospel message. You are making a distinction out of thin air. There is nothing in Scripture that supports what you're talking about. It's completely made up.
The passage is about our relationship with God. What do you think he's condemning us to, another losing season in the Big 12?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BTW, I noticed that there is an if/then construction earlier in the chapter. I was only looking at the flesh verses, not the bread verses. But once again, it is speaking of "the [man] believing." Pretty clearly the verses are not about Satanists.
No one is talking about being given "two sets of lives." You have your beliefs. I'm just trying to help you understand what Catholics believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus instructed his followers to do it "in remembrance" of him, not as an ongoing, re-presented sacrifice.Sam Lowry.Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved. said:A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingQuote:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Quote:No.Quote:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Quote:Communion is not an absolute necessity.Quote:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Quote:
Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."breadflesh.
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
The only "knowing rejection" that condemns a person is the knowing rejection of Jesus. A person who fully believes in and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation is not condemned to Hell because they reject the eating of a certain bread and drinking of a certain wine. That is relegating the entirety of salvation to the ingestion of physical substance. We KNOW this is not true according to the New Testament, and it's even completely ridiculous to believe that.
The life of Christ that we are given, is the same life that gives us eternal life, and is the same life we have in heaven. Jesus clearly says the life he gives us is "eternal". We are not given two sets of "lives". Why the need for another life when the life he gave was already eternal? This is a very strange, foreign concept to the Bible's gospel message. You are making a distinction out of thin air. There is nothing in Scripture that supports what you're talking about. It's completely made up.
Apparently without even knowing it, it appears someone is embodying exactly what was said in John 6:61
Like almost exactly, nearly 2,000 years later.
Jesus responded in 6:62
It is fascinating. He says "do This in remembrance of me" with certain stipulations and what it means and some say "well he didn't say do it repeatedly!"
Like when one's mom says "clean your room!" Or "brush your teeth!", they did it once (maybe they did) as a child and said I'm good.
There's some mental Masturbation gymnastics going on to self justify. It's a great case study though in how people think
Like almost exactly, nearly 2,000 years later.
Jesus responded in 6:62
It is fascinating. He says "do This in remembrance of me" with certain stipulations and what it means and some say "well he didn't say do it repeatedly!"
Like when one's mom says "clean your room!" Or "brush your teeth!", they did it once (maybe they did) as a child and said I'm good.
There's some mental Masturbation gymnastics going on to self justify. It's a great case study though in how people think
He's condemning us to judgement to the point of death, not condemning us to Hell or loss of salvation.Sam Lowry said:The passage is about our relationship with God. What do you think he's condemning us to, another losing season in the Big 12?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BTW, I noticed that there is an if/then construction earlier in the chapter. I was only looking at the flesh verses, not the bread verses. But once again, it is speaking of "the [man] believing." Pretty clearly the verses are not about Satanists.
What you're arguing regarding the "whoever (the man)" makes no sense. In the other verses, "the man" part and the "who believes" part correlate with the "the man" and "who eats my flesh" parts in the flesh verses. You're doing a funny thing where you take "the man who believes" and inserting/carrying over that whole phrase into the "the man" part of the flesh verse, like this: "the man who believes.... who eats my flesh has eternal life".
In other words, "the man believing/who believes" is saying "whoever believes" just as "the man eating my flesh" is saying "whoever eats my flesh". They're BOTH saying "whoever". Your reasoning here is all messed up.
And don't those other verses prove the point that "eating my flesh" means the same thing as "believing in Jesus"? The sentences are constructed almost exactly the same.
You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
Getting two lives is exactly what you're saying. You're saying we first get Jesus' eternal life, then a different eternal life in heaven. It's right there in your post.Sam Lowry said:No one is talking about being given "two sets of lives." You have your beliefs. I'm just trying to help you understand what Catholics believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus instructed his followers to do it "in remembrance" of him, not as an ongoing, re-presented sacrifice.Sam Lowry.Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved. said:A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingQuote:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Quote:No.Quote:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Quote:Communion is not an absolute necessity.Quote:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Quote:
Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."breadflesh.
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
The only "knowing rejection" that condemns a person is the knowing rejection of Jesus. A person who fully believes in and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation is not condemned to Hell because they reject the eating of a certain bread and drinking of a certain wine. That is relegating the entirety of salvation to the ingestion of physical substance. We KNOW this is not true according to the New Testament, and it's even completely ridiculous to believe that.
The life of Christ that we are given, is the same life that gives us eternal life, and is the same life we have in heaven. Jesus clearly says the life he gives us is "eternal". We are not given two sets of "lives". Why the need for another life when the life he gave was already eternal? This is a very strange, foreign concept to the Bible's gospel message. You are making a distinction out of thin air. There is nothing in Scripture that supports what you're talking about. It's completely made up.
Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
So to be clear you don't adhere to the Protestant dogma of "faith alone"?
You are correct. No works in and of themselves can lead to salvation. But doing no works, as is called for explicitly in just a cursory effort of 18 verses meticulously laid out, stating the necessities of works, could lead to dire consequences.
So how does a Protestant square that? I provided multiple times the volume of the evidence you provided.
I agree with your thoughts on grace of God. I've never argued against that. Every Protestant I know abides by "faith alone" so maybe you're not Protestant.
Regardless, now that that is put aside, what is your logic to pick and choose the verses you posted and completely ignore the 18 I posted? Does the Bible and Jesus and the apostles simply contradict themselves?
Are all those mentions of the necessary works and actions for salvation just misinterpreted over and over?
You can't even understand what other people are saying. No one said to not to do it repeatedly. You then build your whole argument off of your faulty understanding. It's just a real pain to read your comments.Fre3dombear said:
Apparently without even knowing it, it appears someone is embodying exactly what was said in John 6:61
Like almost exactly, nearly 2,000 years later.
Jesus responded in 6:62
It is fascinating. He says "do This in remembrance of me" with certain stipulations and what it means and some say "well he didn't say do it repeatedly!"
Like when one's mom says "clean your room!" Or "brush your teeth!", they did it once (maybe they did) as a child and said I'm good.
There's some mental Masturbation gymnastics going on to self justify. It's a great case study though in how people think
"But doing no works, as is called for explicitly in just a cursory effort of 18 verses meticulously laid out, stating the necessities of works, could lead to dire consequences."Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
So to be clear you don't adhere to the Protestant dogma of "faith alone"?
You are correct. No works in and of themselves can lead to salvation. But doing no works, as is called for explicitly in just a cursory effort of 18 verses meticulously laid out, stating the necessities of works, could lead to dire consequences.
So how does a Protestant square that? I provided multiple times the volume of the evidence you provided.
I agree with your thoughts on grace of God. I've never argued against that. Every Protestant I know abides by "faith alone" so maybe you're not Protestant.
Regardless, now that that is put aside, what is your logic to pick and choose the verses you posted and completely ignore the 18 I posted? Does the Bible and Jesus and the apostles simply contradict themselves?
Are all those mentions of the necessary works and actions for salvation just misinterpreted over and over?
Cite what these consequences are, precisely. If it entails losing salvation, the you ARE arguing for works based salvation. If it doesn't, then you're not making an argument against "faith alone".
I'm not carrying it over in terms of some explicit grammatical reference, but it's part of the rhetorical context. And Paul's words in 1 Corinthians seem to confirm it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He's condemning us to judgement to the point of death, not condemning us to Hell or loss of salvation.Sam Lowry said:The passage is about our relationship with God. What do you think he's condemning us to, another losing season in the Big 12?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BTW, I noticed that there is an if/then construction earlier in the chapter. I was only looking at the flesh verses, not the bread verses. But once again, it is speaking of "the [man] believing." Pretty clearly the verses are not about Satanists.
What you're arguing regarding the "whoever (the man)" makes no sense. In the other verses, "the man" part and the "who believes" part correlate with the "the man" and "who eats my flesh" parts in the flesh verses. You're doing a funny thing where you take "the man who believes" and inserting/carrying over that whole phrase into the "the man" part of the flesh verse, like this: "the man who believes.... who eats my flesh has eternal life".
In other words, "the man believing/who believes" is saying "whoever believes" just as "the man eating my flesh" is saying "whoever eats my flesh". They're BOTH saying "whoever". Your reasoning here is all messed up.
And don't those other verses prove the point that "eating my flesh" means the same thing as "believing in Jesus"? The sentences are constructed almost exactly the same.
Of course it's not all that fruitful just to argue our own interpretations. That's what Church tradition is for.
It appears we are going off on tangents again. I never said "faith alone," and quite frankly, how you define that phrase is probably quite different than how I would. I did say we are saved by grace, and not by works, a position you clearly dispute, as you believe one attains salvation by both works as well as faith, as you stated above.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:This appears to be nothing more than a stream of conscience rant that doesn't address the issues raised. It either appears you are unserious about this discussion, or you are unable to respond, so I am not sure how productive it will be to continue to engage with you. However, I will address the points raised, though I am not sure further discussion is going to be productive.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "Easy. Would you not agree someone that has never heard the name Jesus could be by our side in Heaven? I believe God to be all Powerful and capable of doing whatever he chooses. I know is he is not a liar."
When I asked, do you have evidence, I was hoping for a little bit more than a hypothetical. By evidence, I meant something in scripture, or something else you believe to be authoritative or canon. A hypothetical is not evidence, nor are my personal thoughts or yours.
While not relevant to this discussion, I will answer your question: Yes, I do believe that someone who had never heard the name of Jesus can be saved. However, the hypothetical you posed asks the wrong question. The more pertinent question is, can someone who has never known Jesus be saved. And the answer to that question, definitively, is no.
There are a number of examples of missionaries who have encountered tribes that knew Jesus, and knew the gospel and what he did for them on the cross, but never knew his name. I recall listening to a missionary to Africa years ago, who described witnessing to an African village that knew Christ, but didn't know his name was Jesus. When he told them, they were thankful that he had finally named their God.
There are other examples of people who have encountered and come to know Christ in dreams. This is especially prevalent right now in the Middle East, and especially Iran.
But again, all of this is irrelevant to the question I posed. Do you have some example in scripture where God made an exception to the rule that we are saved by grace, not by works?
That's some genuine gobbldygook there. "Known" Jesus but never known him / heard his name. Mmmk.
So the Indians of Mexico and south that were slaughtering themselves by the thousands until the apparition of Our Guadalupe which ended that in a matter of years knew Jesus but didn't "know know" Jesus? I think you got that off the View.
Regarding the other point do I just need to post a verse that articulates that God is all powerful? Didn't realizing we wanted to get that sophomoric with the discussion.
Here's one of many which will suffice;
"Behold I am the Lord the God of all flesh: shall any thing be hard for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27)
Now maybe you'll spin some yarn where anything doesn't mean "anything" but I'd bet my soul that God could do anything he wanted, make any exception he wanted (maybe we'd think it's an exception but it wouldn't be in hisninfijite wisdom)( but yet again by my doctrine and teachings I'm not willing to try to count in that. If only it were all so easy
It's also, i suspect, why Jesus says:
"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (Matthew 7:13-14)
Now that's a whole nuther topic we could all entertain about how many / what percentage of souls make it to have. Jesus offers his opinion, in the red text even.
But yet again you're even chamging the question which is odd.
I've already posted many verses that speak to grace and works and even the definition of works which a simple reader of the text can conflate with works vs "words"
Are you asking me to post them again for you? You've already read them and argued about it
And you seem to be asking me to answer a question that is contrary to what I've clearly articulated many times. We are not saved by grace alone.
Now that that is settled,
Show me a verse that says we are saved by "faith alone"
<b>this seems to be where your team goes to. Sigh. You're feeling this way because suddenly you're talking about eansubstantiation and then 2 judgements etc etc. I even have a post stating that the topic is gatito and works vs "faith alone".
Don't know how much simpler I can make it for y'all. But I also expect is this is to be a discourse you can ask questions and I'll answer and I can ask questions but you will also answer (I have several that have gone unanswered unless I missed them) </b>
1) You haven't posted a single verse that shows works are necessary for salvation. Not one. If you are going to post the same verses again, no need. They don't say what you claim they do, as previously pointed out.
<b> I had already posted several and you keep saying I've posted none. That's either a cheeky way of saying you disagree, you're not seeing them or you're just being silly. . I guess you're not reading them. I then put all of them in a single post. There were so many I may have miscounted but I noted there were 18</b>
2) My argument has been consistent throughout. The bible is clear that is it by grace we have been saved, and not by works. This, once again, is the consistent message of the Gospel.
<b>it is true we are saved by grace. I believe you understand Catholics also believe that, but unfortunately the expectations go beyond that. Again, see my 18 verses in my super post for your convenience </b>
3) Per your request, below are a couple of dozen or so verses that speak to the topic you dispute (grace alone, not works):
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
<b>grace is given sure. Where is "faith alone"? Just because it's not the "result of works" doesn't mean works aren't required. Grace exists whether we exist or not. Correlation causality fallacy here in your logic </b>
Titus 3:5
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.
<b>agreed. His grace didn't exist because we did a work. It existed already. It is actually even a work to ACCEPT his grace. It doesn't just hit us. There are things expected is us. See my 18 passages </b>
Galatians 2:16
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
<b>explained clearly in the super post for he's speaking of the mosaic law to Jewish Christian's and their, like your, confusion. The gentiles didn't need to do Shabbat and countless other of the 613 mosaic law "works" to be saved by Jesus. Not revelan to this discussion. Or just your misunderstanding </b>
Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Romans 11:1-36
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. ...
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
<b>addressed in the 18 super post</B>
Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected</b>
Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
<b>again with the mosaic 613 law "works" topic not related to the works we are discussing here on this topic </B>
Romans 3:24
And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected</b>
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected</b>
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected. The expectations of not only not sinking but doing additional works for salvation are cited in the super post</b>
2 Timothy 1:9 E
Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected</b>
Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith
</b> i cite 18 passages where more is expected</b>
Responded in bold but doesn't appear to be holding and each is addressed that "faith alone" is stated nowhere unless maybe as I type this you've gone and found it.
QUESTION - are you saying you don't believe we are saved by "faith alone"? I want to make sure this question doesn't go unresponded to. It should be a simple yes or no on "faith alone"
Catholics of course believe we are saved by God's grace. We are again focusing on the works portion of the debate which I understand you to say is not required despite my 18 passages and yet not a single verse to my knowledge from you yet saying "faith alone"
That being the case, perhaps it would be a little more productive for you to explain why you believe the NT writers got it so wrong. Each of the verses I cited state that salvation is a result of grace, and not works: 1) "For by grace you have been saved through faith...not a result of works," 2) "and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified," 3) "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law," 4) but if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Thus, my question is, why do you believe each of these verses is error? How did Paul get it so wrong in your mind? I mean, he is clearly saying in each of these verses that our salvation is not a result of works, but the free gift of grace. How is it that God allowed him to lie like that to Christians?
The works we do by God's grace are not "works of man."Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
"And not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
So to be clear you don't adhere to the Protestant dogma of "faith alone"?
You are correct. No works in and of themselves can lead to salvation. But doing no works, as is called for explicitly in just a cursory effort of 18 verses meticulously laid out, stating the necessities of works, could lead to dire consequences.
So how does a Protestant square that? I provided multiple times the volume of the evidence you provided.
I agree with your thoughts on grace of God. I've never argued against that. Every Protestant I know abides by "faith alone" so maybe you're not Protestant.
Regardless, now that that is put aside, what is your logic to pick and choose the verses you posted and completely ignore the 18 I posted? Does the Bible and Jesus and the apostles simply contradict themselves?
Are all those mentions of the necessary works and actions for salvation just misinterpreted over and over?
How in the world did Paul get it so wrong? Why is he a liar, in your book?
Jesus lives in our hearts when we invite him. We live eternally as a result.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Getting two lives is exactly what you're saying. You're saying we first get Jesus' eternal life, then a different eternal life in heaven. It's right there in your post.Sam Lowry said:No one is talking about being given "two sets of lives." You have your beliefs. I'm just trying to help you understand what Catholics believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus instructed his followers to do it "in remembrance" of him, not as an ongoing, re-presented sacrifice.Sam Lowry.Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved. said:A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingQuote:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Quote:No.Quote:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Quote:Communion is not an absolute necessity.Quote:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Quote:
Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."breadflesh.
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
The only "knowing rejection" that condemns a person is the knowing rejection of Jesus. A person who fully believes in and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation is not condemned to Hell because they reject the eating of a certain bread and drinking of a certain wine. That is relegating the entirety of salvation to the ingestion of physical substance. We KNOW this is not true according to the New Testament, and it's even completely ridiculous to believe that.
The life of Christ that we are given, is the same life that gives us eternal life, and is the same life we have in heaven. Jesus clearly says the life he gives us is "eternal". We are not given two sets of "lives". Why the need for another life when the life he gave was already eternal? This is a very strange, foreign concept to the Bible's gospel message. You are making a distinction out of thin air. There is nothing in Scripture that supports what you're talking about. It's completely made up.
Perhaps you can do a better job of reconciling this verse than freedom. If our salvation is based partially on works, how in the world did Paul get it so wrong when he said this: "And not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."Sam Lowry said:The works we do with the help of God's grace are not "works of man."Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
Is Paul a false teacher? Is he leading others astray?
No, it's not part of any rhetorical context. You're just making this up. There just isn't any reason to believe that when Jesus said "the man who believes" that everything thereafter is in reference to this group, i.e. when he later says "the man who eats my flesh" he is only referring to a subset containing "the men who believe". There just isn't any reason to not take each of those phrases as being independent, each saying "whoever...." What you're doing to manipulate the meaning is really weird.Sam Lowry said:I'm not carrying it over in terms of some explicit grammatical reference, but it's part of the rhetorical context. And Paul's words in 1 Corinthians seem to confirm it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He's condemning us to judgement to the point of death, not condemning us to Hell or loss of salvation.Sam Lowry said:The passage is about our relationship with God. What do you think he's condemning us to, another losing season in the Big 12?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BTW, I noticed that there is an if/then construction earlier in the chapter. I was only looking at the flesh verses, not the bread verses. But once again, it is speaking of "the [man] believing." Pretty clearly the verses are not about Satanists.
What you're arguing regarding the "whoever (the man)" makes no sense. In the other verses, "the man" part and the "who believes" part correlate with the "the man" and "who eats my flesh" parts in the flesh verses. You're doing a funny thing where you take "the man who believes" and inserting/carrying over that whole phrase into the "the man" part of the flesh verse, like this: "the man who believes.... who eats my flesh has eternal life".
In other words, "the man believing/who believes" is saying "whoever believes" just as "the man eating my flesh" is saying "whoever eats my flesh". They're BOTH saying "whoever". Your reasoning here is all messed up.
And don't those other verses prove the point that "eating my flesh" means the same thing as "believing in Jesus"? The sentences are constructed almost exactly the same.
Of course it's not all that fruitful just to argue our own interpretations. That's what Church tradition is for.
No, he isn't. This leads into the whole topic of justification, which I'll have to leave for tomorrow or the next opportunity. I appreciate the discussion.Mothra said:Perhaps you can do a better job of reconciling this verse than freedom. If our salvation is based partially on works, how in the world did Paul get it so wrong when he said this: "And not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."Sam Lowry said:The works we do with the help of God's grace are not "works of man."Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
Is Paul a false teacher? Is he leading others astray?
It's a sermon, not a statute. Open your mind.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's not part of any rhetorical context. You're just making this up. There just isn't any reason to believe that when Jesus said "the man who believes" that everything thereafter is in reference to this group, i.e. when he later says "the man who eats my flesh" he is only referring to a subset containing "the men who believe". There just isn't any reason to not take each of those phrases as being independent, each saying "whoever...." What you're doing to manipulate the meaning is really weird.Sam Lowry said:I'm not carrying it over in terms of some explicit grammatical reference, but it's part of the rhetorical context. And Paul's words in 1 Corinthians seem to confirm it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He's condemning us to judgement to the point of death, not condemning us to Hell or loss of salvation.Sam Lowry said:The passage is about our relationship with God. What do you think he's condemning us to, another losing season in the Big 12?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"The person/man who eats my flesh, has eternal life" - there is no difference with "whoever". The meaning is the exact same. That's why it's translated that way in virtually all bibles.Sam Lowry said:He doesn't even say "whoever." He says "the [man] eating," which parallels "the [man] believing" and "the [man] having listened and learned" earlier in the passage. In only one instance does he add the modifier--"every [man] having listened and learned."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".Sam Lowry said:He's not expressly making an if/then statement, for whatever that's worth. I would argue he did add a condition, as the context of the passage suggests he's talking about a believer. In any case, Paul makes the condition clear.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus said nothing about stipulations. He simply states that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have eternal life. Period. If one can eat his flesh and drink his blood, but still NOT have eternal life because one did not meet a certain condition, then Jesus' statement is false.Sam Lowry said:It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.LIB,MR BEARS said:Mothra said:I am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.Fre3dombear said:
Furthermore, regarding John 6:53 it seems many here are actually acting out and playing the part of what is said explicitly in scripture in John 6:60
Jesus then gives his response to their unbelief or misunderstanding.
**John 6:60**: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
**John 6:61**: "But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
I should have copied this post first for relevance
"And the other part of it is that the very next verse says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". So if the verse before that is to be taken literally, then this one has to be also. Which would mean that ALL one has to do to be saved is eat some bread and drink some wine. You don't even have to have any belief, repentance, or faith at all. Even a deeply avowed Satanist can be saved if you just give them some of the consecrated bread to eat. And that's just as ridiculous and non-biblical, if not worse. Catholicism and Orthodox's literal interpretation of John chapter 6 simply doesn't hold water."
And there is nothing in the context that suggests he's limiting his statement to believers. "Whoever" is not a limiting term. Even if you want to look at it as only applying to believers, still that doesn't solve your problem with the thief on the cross. He was a believer, and he was saved. So how did he eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?
Nothing Paul stated about communion said there was a condition to having eternal life from "eating Jesus' flesh".
Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.
Where does Paul say that eating and drinking condemns oneself to Hell/loss of salvation? Do you really think he spent all that time and energy spreading a gospel of grace through faith, only to believe that simply eating and drinking something the wrong way will send you to Hell?
BTW, I noticed that there is an if/then construction earlier in the chapter. I was only looking at the flesh verses, not the bread verses. But once again, it is speaking of "the [man] believing." Pretty clearly the verses are not about Satanists.
What you're arguing regarding the "whoever (the man)" makes no sense. In the other verses, "the man" part and the "who believes" part correlate with the "the man" and "who eats my flesh" parts in the flesh verses. You're doing a funny thing where you take "the man who believes" and inserting/carrying over that whole phrase into the "the man" part of the flesh verse, like this: "the man who believes.... who eats my flesh has eternal life".
In other words, "the man believing/who believes" is saying "whoever believes" just as "the man eating my flesh" is saying "whoever eats my flesh". They're BOTH saying "whoever". Your reasoning here is all messed up.
And don't those other verses prove the point that "eating my flesh" means the same thing as "believing in Jesus"? The sentences are constructed almost exactly the same.
Of course it's not all that fruitful just to argue our own interpretations. That's what Church tradition is for.
So, just to be clear, Catholics don't believe baptism is necessary after all? As long as the individual desires baptism, that is sufficient? So we can assume, though the text doesn't speak to it, that the thief on the cross really wanted to be baptized before he died?Sam Lowry said:I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's not what Catholics believe. A person who desires baptism, even implicitly, is not condemned just because they have no opportunity.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"To be saved, you must repent, have faith, and be baptized"Sam Lowry said:
1. The Eucharist doesn't help to forgive mortal sins. It strengthens us in our struggle against the flesh by putting the life of Christ within us.
2. No, he can be forgiven through confession or by asking God's forgiveness with the sincere intent to confess as soon as possible.
3. It is absolutely necessary for us, with two caveats. Only we are bound by it, not God. And it includes not only baptism by water but also by martyrdom and by desire.
4. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 16, 1 John 1.
5. The short answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but belief is only the first step leading to salvation. Mere intellectual belief accomplishes nothing. To be saved you must repent, have faith, and be baptized.
You had just stated that water baptism was NOT absolutely necessary for salvation. Now you are saying it is. This is precisely the "double talk" I've been pointing out with Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but once again have to point out the thief on the cross. Clearly baptism was not a necessity for him.
Christ and his disciples made quite clear in scripture that water baptism, while an act of obedience, is unnecessary for salvation. The idea that this simple, ministerial act as a baby somehow contributes to salvation, is simply incompatible with the nature of God as expressed in the gospels. The idea that God is going to condemn someone who has repented of his sins and gives his life to Christ, but didn't have an opportunity to have this simple ministerial act performed, aside from having no support aim scripture ,just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.
And once again, to reiterate, the thief on the cross.
Where did Christ make it clear that water baptism was unnecessary?
The reason it doesn't make sense is not only because there are a plethora of verses that speak against it, but also because it is incompatible with Christ's teachings. Christ spoke on the subject in John 3:16 - the most famous passage in NT scripture:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Notice what's missing? Notice what Christ says is sufficient for salvation? These verses, along with the numerous verses pointed out in Paul's letters, are all consistent with his actions toward the thief on the cross. No exception is needed.
When your religion requires an exception to explain its dogma, you know it is on shaky ground.
And brother, I would submit, if your belief "doesn't make sense" and seems incompatible with the nature of Christ, then it is almost always going to be error. Our God is not a God of confusion.
Surprised to hear a Catholic claim he believes in the Protestant doctrine of justification - a doctrine developed during the Reformation. This should be interesting.Sam Lowry said:No, he isn't. This leads into the whole topic of justification, which I'll have to leave for tomorrow or the next opportunity. I appreciate the discussion.Mothra said:Perhaps you can do a better job of reconciling this verse than freedom. If our salvation is based partially on works, how in the world did Paul get it so wrong when he said this: "And not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."Sam Lowry said:The works we do with the help of God's grace are not "works of man."Mothra said:You keep using the term "faith alone." That's not a term I used. I said no work of man can lead to salvation, and that's consistent with every single verse I showed you. None of these verses you cited thus far have called into question those many verses on the subject.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:
You said: "It seems Protestants completely misunderstand it or just stubbornly want to think"nah it don't matter. It says works but I don't believe in that cuz pastor Robert told me so". It is so Perilous to their souls."
As pointed out above, the error in this conclusion is your conflating the two judgments described above. Protestants don't believe "works don't matter." To the contrary, and as pointed out above, they do indeed matter, as believers will be rewarded, or not rewarded as the case may be, based on their works here on earth.
What Protestants believe is that it is Christ's free gift of grace, not works, that allow man to be saved. And again, this is consistent with what Christ taught during his recorded sermons here on earth, it's what his disciples taught, and it is what Paul taught. You have yet to point out a single piece of scripture that contradicts those teachings. It is the premise on which the entire Gospel message is based.
I would submit that the security I just described give much more comfort to those in Christ than, have I done all that I can to attain salvation? I can't imagine the kind of worry a works-based faith gives a person.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding and it is why you're adhering to theideas of men that were birthed by women lower in stature than Mary mellenia after the people that walked with Jesus and documented the words and intentions and traditions oral and written.
Much of what you site, which most all Protestants fail to understand, is completely out of context. Especially in Galatians etc whereby Paul is speaking to works and his context of "works" is around the 613 mosaic laws not the works that it is clearly articulated we are judged by as, again, I'll continue to wait for the verse that says were judged by faith alone.
Please share that sola scriptura verse from the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone. This seems to be the bedrock cornerstone of your argument so let's start there.
Additionally, it would be helpful to share for my education the verse that says were should be sola scriptura as that has admittedly thrown me for a loop as I never was taught that and may be missing it.
You say you are sola scriptura and all that is needed is "faith alone"
I've repeatedly asked you to Provide the verse where I can read the words "faith alone".
Is your silence and deflection an admittance that you cannot provide this verse to the discourse as it is the whole basis of your argument and yet if it does not even appear anywhere in the Bible I am struggling to be convinced you are correct.
My mega post cited 18 separate verses where several works / actions are called upon for salvation (with the assumption one has faith of course since Catholics and even Protestants believe that is required- at least I think Protestants believe that)
Is Paul a false teacher? Is he leading others astray?
Agreed. Appreciate the discussion.
If Jesus lives in our hearts when we invite him in, then what happens at communion/the Eucharist, which usually doesn't happen for a while later? Because you're saying the communion is when Jesus first lives in our hearts. Is it at communion/Eucharist, or is it right when you invite him in?Sam Lowry said:Jesus lives in our hearts when we invite him. We live eternally as a result.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Getting two lives is exactly what you're saying. You're saying we first get Jesus' eternal life, then a different eternal life in heaven. It's right there in your post.Sam Lowry said:No one is talking about being given "two sets of lives." You have your beliefs. I'm just trying to help you understand what Catholics believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus instructed his followers to do it "in remembrance" of him, not as an ongoing, re-presented sacrifice.Sam Lowry.Correct, but are you answering the question because you are Roman Catholic? Because if you are, then your answer contradicts the belief of Roman Catholicism that you must be water bapitized and eat Jesus' flesh/drink his blood to be saved. said:A couple of things about that. First, Jesus is primarily addressing his own followers here, instructing them in what is required of them. The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own don't know the sacraments can also achieve salvation. It's the knowing rejection that brings condemnation. And many of his followers did abandon him on this occasion because they were so offended by the idea of eatingQuote:Yes. If "This is my body" is to be taken literally, then so does "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". Otherwise you invalidate your literal interpretation.Quote:No.Quote:It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.Quote:Communion is not an absolute necessity.Quote:But the part about eating his flesh and drinking his blood would have, because Jesus said that before his death. Did a piece of Jesus' flesh and some of his blood fly into the thief's mouth while they were hanging on their crosses?Quote:
Jesus instituted baptism shortly before his Ascension, after the New Covenant was sealed with his death. So even if God were bound by it (which of course he is not), it wouldn't have been an issue for the thief.
It's also important to note that at his ascension, Jesus did not say that water baptism was a necessary condition for salvation. At that time he also said to obey everything that he had commanded. Is obeying all his commands a necessary condition for salvation?
If the Apostle Paul is indeed Jesus' instrument to carry his gospel message to the world after Jesus' ascension, then clearly salvation is by grace through faith, not works or anything performance based. According to Paul, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."breadflesh.
Second, as I understand it, the life that you have within you when receiving the Eucharist is the eternal life of Christ. It's not the eternal life that you receive in heaven, although it does lead and assist you toward that. This is Jesus' meaning in John 6:58--"As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me." The sacrament is our way of inviting Christ into our hearts, as Evangelicals might say, except that we do so continually (see John 6:27).
The only "knowing rejection" that condemns a person is the knowing rejection of Jesus. A person who fully believes in and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation is not condemned to Hell because they reject the eating of a certain bread and drinking of a certain wine. That is relegating the entirety of salvation to the ingestion of physical substance. We KNOW this is not true according to the New Testament, and it's even completely ridiculous to believe that.
The life of Christ that we are given, is the same life that gives us eternal life, and is the same life we have in heaven. Jesus clearly says the life he gives us is "eternal". We are not given two sets of "lives". Why the need for another life when the life he gave was already eternal? This is a very strange, foreign concept to the Bible's gospel message. You are making a distinction out of thin air. There is nothing in Scripture that supports what you're talking about. It's completely made up.