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?

Your post in bold, and then my response:

"Odd. Maybe you're playing a semantic game. When God "renders" do you not agree he is rendering one's admittance to Heaven (or salvation to use your word) and that rendering is "according to his works" how would you not understand that that factors into the rendering?"

Speaking of semantics, I would suggest reading the verses you cited again because they do not say, or even suggest, that God is talking about salvation here or entrance to Heaven, but instead rewarding those based on their works on earth. It appears your error is that you have incorrectly assumed there is only one judgment at the end of the age - a judgment that separates believers from unbelievers - when scripture is clear that there are, in fact, two great coming judgments.

The first is a final judgment of condemnation for only unbelievers. John 5:24 relates to those who believe in Jesus Christ and receive eternal life. They will not have to face the final judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, a judgment of unbelievers after Christ's return to earth as King. Works are mentioned there as evidence that their condemnation and suffering is deserved.

The Bible also speaks clearly about a second judgment facing only believers, called the Judgment Seat of Christ (Greek, bema). In this judgment, believers will not be judged for their faith in Christ as Savior, but for their faithfulness in following Christ as Lord. There, believers will have to give an account for how they used their lives. One's works determines whether one is rewarded or denied rewards. See Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:11-15;4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8.

For the record, your very own Catholic Church purports to hold the beliefs I just stated: 1) a final judgment of condemnation for unbelievers; and 2) a second judgment facing only believers, rewarding them for their works. So, again, the verses you cited are clearly talking about the second judgment facing only believers, not salvation or who "deserves" to get into heaven.

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.

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.

---

Thank you for the response. A few questions:

1) I see you say that the Eucharist doesn't help forgive "mortal sin," which if I am correct, according to Catholic doctrine are grave sins, such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, heresy, schism, apostasy, witchery, despair, and suicide. It appears the suggestion, however, is that it DOES forgive non-mortal sins. Is this correct? And if so, can you please provide the scriptural support for this position?

2) What if the individual believes in Christ, and repented of his sin, but stumbles, as all Christians do? Let's say, for instance, he is a good Catholic, but said a lie right before having a stroke that incapacitated him, and therefore he has no ability to confess or ask God's forgiveness. Does he lose his salvation or go to Hell? Is he no longer "saved"?

3) I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. A few question to help clarify: Are you saying we don't have to be sprinkled/dunked in water, as there is a symbolic baptism that occurs when we are saved? And what do you mean when you say, "we are bound by it, not God"?

4) Could you point to the specific verses? I am not sure I know which verses you are referencing.

5) We are in agreement on all but the last word: baptism. If by baptism, you mean sprinkled/dunk, I see no scriptural support for this position. However, if you are instead referring to some type of symbolic baptism, marked by repentance and a turning from sinful ways, we are probably not that far apart.

You said: "Along the lines of what we've been discussing I'll submit James 2:24. How many verses are we up to at this point as the evidence mounts?"

If we are talking about verses that actually say or support your position, zero thus far. James 2:24 is yet another example of your misinterpretation of scripture to support a position that is contrary to Christ's words in the Gospels. In James 2:24, James is arguing that faith without works is not genuine faith. He is not saying that works are required for salvation, but that faith without works is dead and useless. In short, James is emphasizing that true faith is demonstrated by good works. This is of course consistent with Christ, Paul and the Gospels.

The ironic thing is, you're spending a lot of time trying to come up with the verses that contradict the central message of the Gospels. There are numerous verses that say grace is a free gift. Yet, you continue to try and find verses that dispute those, without explaining why those verses are wrong, as I have done, in correcting your misinterpretations.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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 am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.

---

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."

---

It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

---

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:

---

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.

---

"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.

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"

Mothra said:

---

Your post in bold, and then my response:

"Odd. Maybe you're playing a semantic game. When God "renders" do you not agree he is rendering one's admittance to Heaven (or salvation to use your word) and that rendering is "according to his works" how would you not understand that that factors into the rendering?"

Speaking of semantics, I would suggest reading the verses you cited again because they do not say, or even suggest, that God is talking about salvation here or entrance to Heaven, but instead rewarding those based on their works on earth. It appears your error is that you have incorrectly assumed there is only one judgment at the end of the age - a judgment that separates believers from unbelievers - when scripture is clear that there are, in fact, two great coming judgments.

The first is a final judgment of condemnation for only unbelievers. John 5:24 relates to those who believe in Jesus Christ and receive eternal life. They will not have to face the final judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, a judgment of unbelievers after Christ's return to earth as King. Works are mentioned there as evidence that their condemnation and suffering is deserved.

The Bible also speaks clearly about a second judgment facing only believers, called the Judgment Seat of Christ (Greek, bema). In this judgment, believers will not be judged for their faith in Christ as Savior, but for their faithfulness in following Christ as Lord. There, believers will have to give an account for how they used their lives. One's works determines whether one is rewarded or denied rewards. See Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:11-15;4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8.

For the record, your very own Catholic Church purports to hold the beliefs I just stated: 1) a final judgment of condemnation for unbelievers; and 2) a second judgment facing only believers, rewarding them for their works. So, again, the verses you cited are clearly talking about the second judgment facing only believers, not salvation or who "deserves" to get into heaven.

---

Umm obviously there are two judgements. We've never discussed that here or at least I haven't so not sure why your suggestion I wouldn't state that. It's good that you're aligned there.

To be clear and so you know, Catholics would call the one a particular judgement and then the general or last judgement.

But that's never been a topic.

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.

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Thank you for the response. A few questions:

1) I see you say that the Eucharist doesn't help forgive "mortal sin," which if I am correct, according to Catholic doctrine are grave sins, such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, heresy, schism, apostasy, witchery, despair, and suicide. It appears the suggestion, however, is that it DOES forgive non-mortal sins. Is this correct? And if so, can you please provide the scriptural support for this position?

2) What if the individual believes in Christ, and repented of his sin, but stumbles, as all Christians do? Let's say, for instance, he is a good Catholic, but said a lie right before having a stroke that incapacitated him, and therefore he has no ability to confess or ask God's forgiveness. Does he lose his salvation or go to Hell? Is he no longer "saved"?

3) I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. A few question to help clarify: Are you saying we don't have to be sprinkled/dunked in water, as there is a symbolic baptism that occurs when we are saved? And what do you mean when you say, "we are bound by it, not God"?

4) Could you point to the specific verses? I am not sure I know which verses you are referencing.

5) We are in agreement on all but the last word: baptism. If by baptism, you mean sprinkled/dunk, I see no scriptural support for this position. However, if you are instead referring to some type of symbolic baptism, marked by repentance and a turning from sinful ways, we are probably not that far apart.

---

1. I didn't know until we started talking about it, but yes, evidently it does forgive venial sin. I'd have to do more reading to find out why. To your concern, though, I don't think it means Christ's death was insufficient to forgive sin. All forgiveness is a gift won through Christ's death on the cross. Receiving the sacraments is not the sort of thing the Bible refers to when it talks about works.

2. I'm not sure. I guess I would have to leave that to God and hope and pray for the best. We do believe that God gives every person sufficient grace to be saved, however. That's a key point. Maybe Coke Bear could say more about this.

3. No, not a symbolic baptism. We believe that God instituted the sacraments, but his power is not bound to them. When a person desires to be baptized but is unable to for some reason, God can still grant them the same grace they would have received in baptism. The Church also teaches that this desire may be implicit. It might apply, for example, to those villagers you mentioned who were worshiping Christ without knowing anything about the sacraments.

4. John 6:30-59, 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, Matthew 16:17-19, 1 John 1:3-9.

5. Scripture teaches the necessity of baptism in John 3:5. It was affirmed by the Church Fathers and the Nicene Creed ("we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"). Luther himself believed it (on this point it's been said that he was more of a sacramentalist than the Romanists), and many Protestants still do. So the Church teaches that it is part of what one must do to be saved (note that the very question "what must I do to be saved" implies that you must do something). In no way does that change the fact that forgiveness is a free and unmerited gift from God. Baptism and the other sacraments are simply the means of accepting and receiving his grace.

Mothra said:

---

Your post in bold, and then my response:

"Odd. Maybe you're playing a semantic game. When God "renders" do you not agree he is rendering one's admittance to Heaven (or salvation to use your word) and that rendering is "according to his works" how would you not understand that that factors into the rendering?"

Speaking of semantics, I would suggest reading the verses you cited again because they do not say, or even suggest, that God is talking about salvation here or entrance to Heaven, but instead rewarding those based on their works on earth. It appears your error is that you have incorrectly assumed there is only one judgment at the end of the age - a judgment that separates believers from unbelievers - when scripture is clear that there are, in fact, two great coming judgments.

The first is a final judgment of condemnation for only unbelievers. John 5:24 relates to those who believe in Jesus Christ and receive eternal life. They will not have to face the final judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, a judgment of unbelievers after Christ's return to earth as King. Works are mentioned there as evidence that their condemnation and suffering is deserved.

The Bible also speaks clearly about a second judgment facing only believers, called the Judgment Seat of Christ (Greek, bema). In this judgment, believers will not be judged for their faith in Christ as Savior, but for their faithfulness in following Christ as Lord. There, believers will have to give an account for how they used their lives. One's works determines whether one is rewarded or denied rewards. See Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:11-15;4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8.

For the record, your very own Catholic Church purports to hold the beliefs I just stated: 1) a final judgment of condemnation for unbelievers; and 2) a second judgment facing only believers, rewarding them for their works. So, again, the verses you cited are clearly talking about the second judgment facing only believers, not salvation or who "deserves" to get into heaven.

---

I'm pretty sure this is not a Catholic belief. There is a particular judgment for every person at death, and a universal judgment for all people when Christ returns. The reward given to the righteous is eternal life.

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"

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Romans 3:28

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 3:24

And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Titus 2:11

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

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,

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

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.

---

I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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.

Fre3dombear said:

---

To be clear the specific topic at the moment is faith alone or faith plus works and scriptural defense of such belief

---

It's all the grace of God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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."

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.

---

Had the same problem with this person in another thread, maybe you read it. He was all over the place and his answers didn't make sense so I had to narrow his focus to one particular point at a time, at which time I was able to show what he was saying was wrong. He then sort of went nuts, lashed out and called me a "dolt", and accused me of pestering him when all I was doing was responding to his comments towards me. He then "blocked" me in the end. If you make too much sense and it hits home, he'll probably do the same to you. But I applaud your effort in engaging him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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 am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.

---

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."

---

It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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."

---

Communion is not an absolute necessity.

I took a moment to document all the verses I've already pointed out that clearly articulated why we are called to do more (ie works / actions / verbs) than "faith alone" to achieve salvation

Roman's 3 - saved by faith. Catholics believe we are saved by faith but again I don't hear or see the words "faith alone"

James 2:24 saved by works and not "faith alone"

Galatians and Roman's Paul is speaking of works of the law. The 613 mosaic laws. Many here keep going back to this I guess not realizing Paul and Jewish Christians of the day were arguing gentiles needed to be Jews (ie circumsized and exhibit the 613 works of the mosaic laws) to be Christian's. Paul is saying you don't get saved by doing these "works" ie the 613 Jewish laws.

Acts 15 - supports this by saying you don't have to be a Jew to become a Christian.

How was Abraham saved - by faith. He did not even have the mosaic laws to do those "works" Paul spoke of in the verses the "faith alone" faction have pointed to. He was saved by faith but then how many actions did God request him to do? He demonstrated his belief and faith in God by obeying him and aciting Upon God's requests. Had he not taken those actions he'd have disobeyed God at worst and not done what God requested of him at best, even though I guess he had faith and where would that have left him? Is an action-less faith something one wants to hope will be enough when, as we'll see extensively below, we are called explicitly in so many scriptures to do works or actions to achieve salvation and demonstrate our faith and belief.

John 3:16 - a huge point of confusion for Protestants that buy into once saved always saved. Again, very important to go to the Greek because this verse technically says he who is believing, a continual state not a past state, not a thing done once to check the box and now I'm saved, but through the continual act or works of believing (a verb or a work or an act, also a verb and the things that come with those acts). In fact calling back to Abraham, God had him perform many acts to demonstrate his faith and belief in God not just that he was saved previously and all was good done deal yippee I'm heading to Heaven. He then made multiple requests of him even up to killing his only son. James speaks to this (James 2:21, James 2:22 and James 2:24)

As a quick aside God changed Abrahams name (and Israel's and Peter's the rock which then led to the reasons Catholics have Popes and the reasons they take on a second name they are called by)


Acts 16:31 believe in the Lord and you will be saved. But what does "believe" mean?
The Hebrew concept of believing includes obeying. How does one demonstrate they obey? Through the actions or works of doing what is commanded. (See Abraham above) What do you think he means when he says that I am saved because I believe? It is understood that every apostle was killed for their belief in Jesus. They didn't just say they believed and went to Heaven, they carried out actions up to the point of death for Jesus and their faith in him.

What you are describing is being the chicken vs the pig in the breakfast. Your arguments consistently are that ALL I OR ANYONE HAS TO DO IS HAVE "FAITH ALONE"and I am saved by the grace of God and you are trying to suggest that you can believe with no actions (which we've already disputed clearly with several verses) and that no works are necessary (demonstrated in several verses and more to come below). In fact it is impossible to believe and do no works as God calls us to do many works that demonstrate our beliefs and faith even just in living the 10 commandments. They don't all 10 say "faith alone". In fact that is stated nowhere in the Bible.

Acts 2:38 Peter speaks of repentance and baptism, also 2 "works". Are you suggesting you can go to Heaven if not baptized?

you've even expressed all you have to do is accept Gods grace, which the act of accepting in and of itself is a work and couldn't be done by "faith alone" (still waiting on the verse that says that) - therefore to even accept God's grace you must perform a work

Romans 10:9-10 if you CONFESS Jesus is Lord you will be saved. Again he's explicitly saying if you DO AN ACTION OR A WORK you will be saved. Again not "faith alone", but an action

1 Timothy 2:4 Paul says "Arrive at acknowledgement of the truth you will be saved". Again, an action beyond just "faith alone"

Romans 2:6-7 Render to each according to his works and those who SEEK glory and honor and incorruption, he will render eternal life. Again an action or work to achieve eternal life and no Mention of "faith alone"

Matthew 24:13 "saved by our PERSEVERANCE". Another work not "faith alone"

Mark 13:13 "he that shall ENDURE to the end shall be saved ". Enduring, an action or work, not "faith alone"

Hebrews 6:11-12: "And we desire that every one of you shew forth the same carefulness to the accomplishing of hope unto the end: That you become not slothful, but followers of them, who through faith and patience shall inherit the promises." Not being slothful and being patient is a work or action, not "faith alone"

- Hebrews 10:36: "For patience is necessary for you; that, DOING the will of God, you may receive the promise." Exhibiting Patience and DOING the will of God are works and actions, not "faith alone"

These are all things that must be done (ie works) as part of believing and having faith. Not doing these things, as we are explicitly called by the word of God to do, would explicitly show that we are not exhibiting patience, endurance, non-slothfulness, perseverance, seeking glory honor and incorruption, confessing Jesus is Lord, repentance, baptism, confess with your mouth, arrive at acknowledgement of the truth, doing the will of God etc. - all works / actions / verbs, not "faith alone"

He wants and expects us to DO these things to achieve salvation and as part of believing in him and having faith.

And nowhere does a single verse say "faith alone" (unless you can point me to it and then I'll reconsider)

All in all there's 18 or so explicitly cited versus where it clearly articulated something other than "faith aline" is required to achieve salvation

And yet the number of verses out of the 35,527 verses in the Bible that say "faith alone", what I understand to be your core conviction of all that is needed (at least that and no works or actions) to achieve eternal life in a heaven, is in fact:

Zero

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

I honestly have no clue how this at all responds to or addresses my comments. You seem to be going off on a tangent.

---

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)

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

Seeing some thoughts of people I have blocked and it's quite interesting the pretzel they get themselves in.

Usually it starts to reach for random, one in a million situations. So yes, of course those have to be considered, but shouldn't be the main focus which is where they go to when they've lost the argument.

They'll say something like this "if a Catholic family has just welcomed a new addition to the family (a baby) and many days later they are driving to the church and baptismal font and sadly they get in a wreck and the baby dies, does the baby go to hell?"

Of course these things have all be spoken to infallibly by the church. Yes they do happen. It's like an abortion that occurs for rape or incest. It's .000001% of souls say

And God in his infinite wisdom and grace has a solution for it.

That said, it doesn't invalidate the points of the fundamentals of God's teaching and expectations, even for the very person making the absurd straw man argument to defend their point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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 am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.

---

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."

---

It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".

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".

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

Absolutes don't have caveats.

There's that double-talk again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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."

---

Communion is not an absolute necessity.

---

It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.

Mothra said:

---

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"

---

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.

<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"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

Absolutes don't have caveats.

There's that double-talk again.

---

I am not getting into the overall discussion, but I appreciate the comment of an educated person and have sympathy for having to argue with an uneducated person ... as you noted, by definition "absolute" means "no caveats. If there are caveats, then it is not absolute. I miss when we educated folks in this country.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

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.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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 am not sure of the relevance of these verses to our discussion.

---

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."

---

It wouldn't mean that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Sounds like an if/then statement to me: "Whoever does x, I will do y".

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".

---

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."

Eating and drinking condemnation on oneself doesn't indicate a condition? Hm.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

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.

---

You could say thief on cross or equally person that dies in car on way to baptism at any age having never received communion or baptism.

Are those expectations the same as for you and 99.999999999% of souls that have existed? And since they aren't, does that mean we get to dumb down the expectations of us because "again, thief on cross"?

I don't recall Jesus saying in the beatitudes "look 5000, I'm gonna say a bunch of stuff the next 3 years, but while I want you to consider it, live your hedonistic thieving lives and have a good time as long as at the end you just say I'm the messiah"

Now will that work for some people? Is it possible? Of course. We better hope it is. Does that mean that we're called to do that and live that way for salvation? Nope.

How he applies his infinite grace and mercy and how it affects each sinner, we don't know. That's part of the faith part. But then all the other stuff he said and his Apostles said as a command to us was just a bunch of gibberish and frankly unnecessary if all we have to do is "just" be like "again,the thief"

If you can reconcile that with your way of believing, more power to ya. And I hope it works out. It just might. I wouldn't know. It's not what we're called to do (again, the 18).

Nobody would for sure know if it's enough BECAUSE you don't know what was in the heart and soul of the thief in the cross. You know what he said. Is your soul as convicted as his? Do you believe without seeing as much as the thief dying on the cross next to him? You surely think you do and more. But how do you know? A dangerous game.

I am trying my best (and failing daily) to do what was requested and commanded of me through God's word that I've shared here at length. I know that God's grace is infinite and available to me and while I can't earn it I have been called to do things to the best of my ability as instructed in the Bible.

If one wants to pick and choose and completely ignore the 18 passages I summarized so elegantly and pithily for your convenience, well that they say is free will.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

---

It is an absolute necessity, with the caveats I explained above.

---

Absolutes don't have caveats.

There's that double-talk again.

---

The caveat is that you have to understand how baptism is defined.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

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

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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."

---

Communion is not an absolute necessity.

---

It is, if you take the Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is literally Jesus' body.

---

No.