D. C. Bear said:

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

I agree. The church of the first millenium agrees. The idea that confession is like an itemized tax return comes from the Roman Catholic idea that the church has the keys to the kingdom from which its priests dispense forgiveness in Christ's stead.

Here is how the a real prayer confessing sins to God begins and ends in the one Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox Church "I, a great sinner, confess to my Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ all the evil I have committed, uttered or thought since Baptism to the present day...I cannot enumerate all my sins because of their great number. I truly repent of all these my sins and of the sins I have not mentioned by reason of forgetfulness. I ask to be forgiven because of God's great mercy."

Compare that to how it begins in the Roman Catholic religion: ""Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was ___ days/months/years ago) and these are my sins."


Here's the thing though. Most of these tools of Christian discipline (and I mean this in the sense of self-discipline, not getting sent to the principal's office) rightly understood and given to the church are so that the disciple can do his best to follow the second half of Christ's commandment..."Go and sin no more."

Realitybites said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

I agree. The church of the first millenium agrees. The idea that confession is like an itemized tax return comes from the Roman Catholic idea that the church has the keys to the kingdom from which its priests dispense forgiveness in Christ's stead.

Here is how the a real prayer confessing sins to God begins and ends in the one Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox Church "I, a great sinner, confess to my Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ all the evil I have committed, uttered or thought since Baptism to the present day...I cannot enumerate all my sins because of their great number. I truly repent of all these my sins and of the sins I have not mentioned by reason of forgetfulness. I ask to be forgiven because of God's great mercy."

Compare that to how it begins in the Roman Catholic religion: ""Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was ___ days/months/years ago) and these are my sins."


Here's the thing though. Most of these tools of Christian discipline (and I mean this in the sense of self-discipline, not getting sent to the principal's office) rightly understood and given to the church are so that the disciple can do his best to follow the second half of Christ's commandment..."Go and sin no more."

---

"Forgive me, Father" is relatively uncommon. Most often it would be "bless me, Father." We also end with "for these and all my sins I am truly sorry" so as to include those we may have forgotten.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.

---

This is an unbelievably dangerous heresy. To say that half of Matthew 18 doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus taught it during his earthly ministry before the resurrection is heretical. Particularly given the scriptural context: which clearly indicates that this addresses those who believe in Him.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

How does this apply to the modern Christian? It is not a question of actually gouging out your eye, but rather expelling occasions to sin from your life, and doing so aggressively.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.

But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.

---

It's a "dangerous heresy" to say that salvation is by grace through faith now that Jesus has paid for sin, not by obeying the Law perfectly, which was the only way before Jesus' sacrifice?

No one is saying "half of Matthew" doesn't apply to Christians today. What was said was that those verses which say the Old Covenant way to eternal life (perfection), which was applicable to people before Jesus' sacrifice, are not applicable today now that Jesus fulfilled the Law and paid for all sin through his sacrifice.

When Jesus said to gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, he wasn't just saying that we should deal with our sin aggresively, he was clearly saying that the sin from your eye can send you to Hell. Does that apply to Christians today? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if someone puts their faith in Jesus for their salvation, they still can go to Hell because of sin?

Some things Jesus said was meant to get people to realize the impossibility of salvation by their own merit. You can't take these verses to support a works/merit based salvation. If you do, you're missing the entire point. In fact, you're doing the very opposite of what was intended. Let's be honest - the vast majority of Christians if that have ever lived, if not all of them, very likely have not obeyed the Law perfectly, have sinned with their eyes, and have called other people "fools" in their hearts, and even worse things than that. If those verses apply to us today, then the vast majority of us Christians are doomed to Hell.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.

---

.... I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.

But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.

---

You came to this conclusion because you really don't understand the Gospel, let alone what evangelicals believe about it.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sacraments aid us in running the race and living a disciplined Christian life.

I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?

---

It depends on what you mean by "required". If you come to faith and perish unable to partake in baptism and the eucharist then they are not required. If you come to faith and then of your own free will refuse to partake in baptism and the eucharist, you are lost. In the church of the first millenium, the catachumen spent many months or years being instructed in the faith before being baptized and entering into communion. Yet it was the universally held that a catachumen who died before this was still saved.

---

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that says that if you refuse to be water baptized and take communion that you go to Hell, even if you put your faith in Jesus. They are sins like any other sins of disobedience. You are mixing faith with works as requirements for salvation. It is much like how those in Acts were teaching that one had to be circumcised to become a Christian and thus saved. The apostle Paul said this is a false gospel, and that anyone who teaches a false Gospel should be cursed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.

---

Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.

---

He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.

---

Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?

---

I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?

---

The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?

---

No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.

---

So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?

---

Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.

---

In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.

---

I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.

---

I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.

---

Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.

---

Before you latch on to your new "insight", realize that true faith isn't where one believes just so they can have the "entitlement" to sin.

---

It's a dangerous attitude to have, regardless.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.

---

Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.

---

He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.

---

Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?

---

I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?

---

The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?

---

No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.

---

So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?

---

Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.

---

In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.

---

I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.

---

I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.

---

Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.

---

Before you latch on to your new "insight", realize that true faith isn't where one believes just so they can have the "entitlement" to sin.

---

It's a dangerous attitude to have, regardless.

---

It's an attitude of someone who isn't a true believer. And what's eternally more dangerous is for people to believe that one's salvation depends on their performance, thus making void Jesus' finished work on the cross.

[Religion In The Nineties:

Social scientist Ryan Burge has done a deep dive in new statistics, and shares his analysis on his Substack. I don't know if this is paywalled, because I'm a subscriber. He says that the years 1991-98 were the most consequential for American religion in the past half-century. Why? Because that's when the serious decline began. Look at this graf:



More (bold is in original):

Quote:

---

I've got to admit that I was really looking for the "aha" moment, but there's none to be found. If the nones went up 12.5 points, where did the declines come from? A little bit here and a little bit there, really. For evangelicals, the mainline, and the Black Church it was 3 points each. Add the Catholic drop in there and that's really the ballgame. There's no specific religious tradition to pin this on - it's all types of Christianity and in nearly equal measure. It's not like evangelicals were hanging on while the mainline crashed. That's not what the data says at all. Both traditions were losing share in equal numbers.

---

Burge says that more recent data indicate that the rise of the Nones may have plateau'd. If so, great news.
So what happened in 1991 to provoke the decline? From time to time I'll see an analysis by some liberal who blames the Religious Right for politicizing Christianity. That's mostly self-serving nonsense. The Mainline declined even faster than Evangelicalism, and the Catholics were not really part of the "Religious Right" per se and yet, they declined.

I wonder if it had something to do with the end of the Cold War and the shift in cultural psychology. I'm sure few if any people during the Cold War went to church because We Have To Show Those Godless Commies. But even in my rarely-churchgoing home, we all had a clear sense that it was God-fearing America versus the God-hating Soviets. I can't know for sure, but I bet that the ambient anxiety from the Cold War had a lot to do with keeping some people in church, or at least affirming religion...

Again, my intuition is that the psychology of the Cold War was a kind of katechon that kept American Christianity from declining at the same rate as it had been doing in Europe.] -Rod Dreher

The Berlin Wall fell 3 years before the noticeable inflection point in that graph.

However the decline does seem to correlate with the rise of the internet.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Actually, the way we ended up with sola scriptura and a thousand protestant sects is an extremely corrupt and power-hungry Catholic Church that abused its power over a period of centuries, and warped the Word of God to fit its schemes. It then killed those who wanted to learn directly from scripture, instead of some fallible church father. That is the true culprit.

---

It did that. It sacked Constantinople. It killed Christian converts among the Aleuts and native tribes on the west coast who had been evangelized by the Russians long before the United States expanded into its present footprint.

Quote:

---

There is no infallible church. You've admitted yourself that the Catholic Church is corrupt and warped.

---

Yes on both counts. But there is the original church, and it still exists on earth today...and as both Roman Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical churches collapse in the West, it is seeing explosive growth. It has preserved the faith once delivered to the saints...and a Christian in 2025 is much better off looking backwards to that faith rather than trying to reverse engineer it using Bible verses.

Take the issue of fasting, for example. Despite Jesus saying that his disciples would fast after his departure and that certain exorcisms can only occur with prayer and fasting, modern evangelicalism has made it entirely optional. Do you think that is wise?

---

So which orthodox church are you claiming is the original church?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.

---

God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.

Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.

---

True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.

Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.

---

I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.

---

We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.

---

Problem with this position is there are numerous verses supporting my position, and zero supporting yours, IMO.

In short, I don't think your disagreement is legitimate. It is against the great weight of authority. But so are a number of Catholic beliefs and practices.

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.

---

I agree. However, with every passing century, Roman Catholic tradition diverges ever further from what the Church of the First Millenium - guided by the Holy Spirit and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the first of which was documented in Acts - held to be true. Christianity in the West is collapsing. We have to go back.

---

The idea that Christians have always believed the current iteration of Catholic doctrine is an interesting position, to say the least, especially given that many of those traditions weren't developed until hundreds of years after Christ's death.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.

---

God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.

Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.

---

True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.

Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.

---

I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.

---

We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.

The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

The children of God are those who follow the leading of his Spirit and share in Christ's suffering by putting to death the ways of the flesh (Romans 8:12-17).

---

True. However, why do you believe these verses support the idea that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God? The verses you cited neither say, nor suggest same.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.

---

God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.

Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.

---

True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.

Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.

---

I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.

---

We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.

The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

The children of God are those who follow the leading of his Spirit and share in Christ's suffering by putting to death the ways of the flesh (Romans 8:12-17).

---

True. However, why do you believe these verses support the idea that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God? The verses you cited neither say, nor suggest same.

---

See Mark 1:5, Acts 19:18, James 5:16, 1 John 1:9.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking more...but he's promising that we can accomplish it, through his grace alone.

---

God never promises that we can attain perfection while we are in our earthly bodies. In fact, he says just the opposite - we are incapable of perfection, which is why grace is necessary on a daily basis. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.

Salvation through grace is simply not compatible with salvation by works. Otherwise, it would not be grace.

---

True, we won't accomplish it in this life. It's an ongoing journey.

Grace is the reason we can ask forgiveness when we sin. That is not to be taken for granted, as if it were automatic. Christ paid a high price for it. To say we must repent and confess in order to receive it by no means diminishes the importance of grace.

---

I don't disagree. We have to repent and confess to receive Christ's grace and salvation. Where you (and Catholicism generally) err is that scripture doesn't describe this as a continual process. We don't repent, confess, receive grace, then sin and lose grace, so that we have to go through a process of confession and works to receive His grace again. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that a true convert will ever lose his salvation, or that he must continually perform works to keep it.

---

We'll have to disagree on that. I think there's simply no end of scriptural support for it, some of which I shared in an earlier post.

The bottom line is always this--when in doubt, look to what Christians have always believed. Catholic tradition is at least valuable in this regard, even if you don't recognize it as authoritative. And while the Church Fathers aren't infallible, they are evidence of how Scripture was interpreted by those much closer in time to Christ and the Apostles than you and I.

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

The children of God are those who follow the leading of his Spirit and share in Christ's suffering by putting to death the ways of the flesh (Romans 8:12-17).

---

True. However, why do you believe these verses support the idea that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God? The verses you cited neither say, nor suggest same.

---

See Mark 1:5, Acts 19:18, James 5:16, 1 John 1:9.

---

Mark 1:5: The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

This verse refers to early pre-resurrection converts. Indeed, confession of sins and repentance lead to salvation. But this verse does not say, much less suggest, that continual confession is required for salvation - just as continual baptism is not required for salvation.

Acts 19:18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. 19 A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas

Again, like the verse above, this reiterates that confession of sins is a part of salvation. It does not state, or suggest we lose salvation if we fail to confess every single sin.

James 5:16: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

Yes, we are asked to confess our sins to brothers and sisters in Christ for our spiritual health, as this verse suggests. But once again, there is no suggestion in this verse that failure to confess will lead to losing our salvation.

1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Again, this verse acknowledges that James 5:16 recognizes. But also again, it does not state much less suggest we lose salvation because of unconfessed sin.

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Sure there is, especially when read in context with the other verses pointed out on this thread. You're making an assumption that is unwarranted instead of trying to understand what the plain language of the text says.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Sure there is, especially when read in context with the other verses pointed out on this thread. You're making an assumption that is unwarranted instead of trying to understand what the plain language of the text says.

---

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

The plainest reading is that this is a conditional statement. You'd really have to stretch to make it mean anything else.

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Negative inference fallacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Negative inference fallacy.

---

Surprised that took you so long...but no.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Negative inference fallacy.

---

Surprised that took you so long...but no.

---

Effectively, yes. Going by what you really mean.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Sure there is, especially when read in context with the other verses pointed out on this thread. You're making an assumption that is unwarranted instead of trying to understand what the plain language of the text says.

---

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

The plainest reading is that this is a conditional statement. You'd really have to stretch to make it mean anything else.

---

The stretch is suggesting that continual confession is required of the Christian to avoid Hell - a position not stated anywhere in scripture.

Confession and repentance at the moment of salvation are indeed required. But there simply is no support that the Christian saved by Christ's grace must continually confess to avoid Hell. This is you once again making unwarranted assumptions not included in the text.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Sure there is, especially when read in context with the other verses pointed out on this thread. You're making an assumption that is unwarranted instead of trying to understand what the plain language of the text says.

---

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

The plainest reading is that this is a conditional statement. You'd really have to stretch to make it mean anything else.

---

The stretch is suggesting that continual confession is required of the Christian to avoid Hell - a position not stated anywhere in scripture.

Confession and repentance at the moment of salvation are indeed required. But there simply is no support that the Christian saved by Christ's grace must continually confess to avoid Hell. This is you once again making unwarranted assumptions not included in the text.

---

True. It is also true that a Christian will continue to confess sins because he or she will continue to sin. A retired pastor in our church characterized it by saying that he didn't sin any less than he did when he was younger, but he confessed his sins faster. What a distorted view of the love of God to think that if you, as a follower of Jesus, die without having confessed a particular sin you are condemned to separation from God. What a weak Gospel that would be.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"If we confess, he will forgive." It's hard not to see the suggestion that if we don't, he won't.

---

Sure there is, especially when read in context with the other verses pointed out on this thread. You're making an assumption that is unwarranted instead of trying to understand what the plain language of the text says.

---

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

The plainest reading is that this is a conditional statement. You'd really have to stretch to make it mean anything else.

---

The stretch is suggesting that continual confession is required of the Christian to avoid Hell - a position not stated anywhere in scripture.

Confession and repentance at the moment of salvation are indeed required. But there simply is no support that the Christian saved by Christ's grace must continually confess to avoid Hell. This is you once again making unwarranted assumptions not included in the text.

---

True. It is also true that a Christian will continue to confess sins because he or she will continue to sin. A retired pastor in our church characterized it by saying that he didn't sin any less than he did when he was younger, but he confessed his sins faster. What a distorted view of the love of God to think that if you, as a follower of Jesus, die without having confessed a particular sin you are condemned to separation from God. What a weak Gospel that would be.

---

Agreed. Continued confession is pivotal to sanctification (not salvation or "justification," as the Catholics call it). We are called to confess our sins both to God, and our fellow Christians.

What it is not, however, is pivotal to maintaining one's salvation, for if it were, salvation would not be a free gift.

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

Huge differences inside a lot of churches of the same faith too. Will speak to the Lutherans as that is my bread and butter. Keep in mind that nearly all Protestantism came from Martin Luther "nailing it" (btw, I DO NOT claim to be the best Christian. Too much red blooded male in me... However I did help run the POPL Special Needs Group at POP. That's why I understand Porteroso and JR so well. )

The LCMS believes that the Bible is without error in all that it says. The ELCA avoids making such statements, holding that Scripture is not necessarily always accurate on such matters as history and science.

My old church before I moved was Prince of Peace Lutheran in Carrollton. It is part of the Missouri Synod and was a somewhat conservative church.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), in 2009, the ELCA voted to allow LGBTQ individuals in committed relationships to serve as clergy. They also support same-sex marriage, aligning with their broader commitment to justice and equality. It is also most certainly true that the church body known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has rejected Lutheranism by embracing transgenderism, just as it has already done by embracing other tenants of the overarching critical theory religion. They have become intolerant toward conservatives:

https://www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/liberal-elca-lutheran-denomination-becomes-more-intolerant-of-conservatives

The amount of Lutheran groups is huge.

• American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC)
• Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (ALCA)
• Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC)
• Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC)
• Augsburg Lutheran Churches (ALC)
• Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC)
• Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (CLBA)
• Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC)
• Concordia Lutheran Conference (CLC)
• Conservative Lutheran Association (CLA)
• Eielsen Synod
• Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church (EELK)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church Eesti Synod[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-2][2][/url]
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC)
• Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America (ELCM)
• Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)
• General Lutheran Church (GLC)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-3][3][/url]
• Illinois Lutheran Conference (ILC)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-4][4][/url]
• Independent Lutheran Diocese (ILD)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-5][5][/url]
• Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC)
• Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (LELCA)
• Lutheran Church Canada (LCC)
• Lutheran Church International (LC-I)
• Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS)
• Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR)
• Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship (LCCF)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-6][6][/url]
• Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)
• Lutheran Orthodox Church (LOC)
• The Reformed Lutheran Church of America (RLCA)
• The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (GCEPC)
• Lutheran Ministerium and Synod USA (LMS-USA)
• North American Lutheran Church (NALC)
• Old Apostolic Lutheran Church
• Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference (OLCC)
• Protes'tant Conference
• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

---

To be Catholic or Orthodox has been synonymous with being Christian through most of church history. I don't know whether you consider the Church Fathers to have been Catholic, but either way, they were clear on the subject of confession, just as they were on baptism and communion. See also Didache 4:14, 14:1, written in the late 1st century. "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

---

To be Catholic or Orthodox has been synonymous with being Christian through most of church history. I don't know whether you consider the Church Fathers to have been Catholic, but either way, they were clear on the subject of confession, just as they were on baptism and communion. See also Didache 4:14, 14:1, written in the late 1st century. "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure."

---

It depends on who you are referencing. If we are talking about the apostles, no they were not Catholic or Orthodox. Moreover, many of what are considered the early church fathers were likewise not Catholic or Orthodox. As discussed previously, the current iteration of Catholicism was foreign to the apostles and early church fathers.

That said, even if we have to look at extra-biblical sources for the belief you are espousing (which is in and of itself quite telling), not even your quote above suggests that Christians, saved by Christ's blood, will lose their salvation if they do not continuously confess sins.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

---

To be Catholic or Orthodox has been synonymous with being Christian through most of church history. I don't know whether you consider the Church Fathers to have been Catholic, but either way, they were clear on the subject of confession, just as they were on baptism and communion. See also Didache 4:14, 14:1, written in the late 1st century. "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure."

---

It depends on who you are referencing. If we are talking about the apostles, no they were not Catholic or Orthodox. Moreover, many of what are considered the early church fathers were likewise not Catholic or Orthodox. As discussed previously, the current iteration of Catholicism was foreign to the apostles and early church fathers.

That said, even if we have to look at extra-biblical sources for the belief you are espousing (which is in and of itself quite telling), not even your quote above suggests that Christians, saved by Christ's blood, will lose their salvation if they do not continuously confess sins.

---

There are many other passages in Patristic literature. It's not Scripture, but it's evidence of what Christians believed.

I'm back. I will go find the jumping off point where we were last discussing some of our scriptural topics and see where we want to pick it back up.

Mothra said:

---

Thanks. I will post my questions again in the hope you can try to answer them:

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

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

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

---

@mothra

As best I can tell, this is where we left off. Is that correct? Should we start with these 3?

(this was on about page 11 for your reference. we can of course go back and grab the other posts that we were in the middle of discussing as well).

Assassin said:

---

Huge differences inside a lot of churches of the same faith too. Will speak to the Lutherans as that is my bread and butter. Keep in mind that nearly all Protestantism came from Martin Luther "nailing it" (btw, I DO NOT claim to be the best Christian. Too much red blooded male in me... However I did help run the POPL Special Needs Group at POP. That's why I understand Porteroso and JR so well. )

The LCMS believes that the Bible is without error in all that it says. The ELCA avoids making such statements, holding that Scripture is not necessarily always accurate on such matters as history and science.

My old church before I moved was Prince of Peace Lutheran in Carrollton. It is part of the Missouri Synod and was a somewhat conservative church.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), in 2009, the ELCA voted to allow LGBTQ individuals in committed relationships to serve as clergy. They also support same-sex marriage, aligning with their broader commitment to justice and equality. It is also most certainly true that the church body known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has rejected Lutheranism by embracing transgenderism, just as it has already done by embracing other tenants of the overarching critical theory religion. They have become intolerant toward conservatives:

https://www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/liberal-elca-lutheran-denomination-becomes-more-intolerant-of-conservatives

The amount of Lutheran groups is huge.

• American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC)
• Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (ALCA)
• Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC)
• Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC)
• Augsburg Lutheran Churches (ALC)
• Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC)
• Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (CLBA)
• Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC)
• Concordia Lutheran Conference (CLC)
• Conservative Lutheran Association (CLA)
• Eielsen Synod
• Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church (EELK)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church Eesti Synod[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-2][2][/url]
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC)
• Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America (ELCM)
• Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)
• General Lutheran Church (GLC)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-3][3][/url]
• Illinois Lutheran Conference (ILC)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-4][4][/url]
• Independent Lutheran Diocese (ILD)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-5][5][/url]
• Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC)
• Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (LELCA)
• Lutheran Church Canada (LCC)
• Lutheran Church International (LC-I)
• Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS)
• Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR)
• Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship (LCCF)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations_in_North_America#cite_note-6][6][/url]
• Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)
• Lutheran Orthodox Church (LOC)
• The Reformed Lutheran Church of America (RLCA)
• The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (GCEPC)
• Lutheran Ministerium and Synod USA (LMS-USA)
• North American Lutheran Church (NALC)
• Old Apostolic Lutheran Church
• Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference (OLCC)
• Protes'tant Conference
• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

---

I read before that there are over 40,000 "versions" / denominations of Christianity. All depends how they are counted of course etc etc but getting 2 humans to agree on anything is, well, hard.

Plus, as we are seeing in what Trump / Elon / DOGE are exposing for all the world to see, there's big big big money to be made in bending the knee to the government as a church leader. tsk tsk. God is watching us all.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

---

To be Catholic or Orthodox has been synonymous with being Christian through most of church history. I don't know whether you consider the Church Fathers to have been Catholic, but either way, they were clear on the subject of confession, just as they were on baptism and communion. See also Didache 4:14, 14:1, written in the late 1st century. "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure."

---

It depends on who you are referencing. If we are talking about the apostles, no they were not Catholic or Orthodox. Moreover, many of what are considered the early church fathers were likewise not Catholic or Orthodox. As discussed previously, the current iteration of Catholicism was foreign to the apostles and early church fathers.

That said, even if we have to look at extra-biblical sources for the belief you are espousing (which is in and of itself quite telling), not even your quote above suggests that Christians, saved by Christ's blood, will lose their salvation if they do not continuously confess sins.

---

how do you define "continuously"?

The Catholic church does give recommendations on how frequently one must confess their sins. Also, what happens if one dies not in a state of grace. Continuously isnt part of it though.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.

---

So, you've changed your position to ours, and now subscribe to scripture's multiple verses on this topic, instead of your own mistaken assumptions? Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.

---

To be Catholic or Orthodox has been synonymous with being Christian through most of church history. I don't know whether you consider the Church Fathers to have been Catholic, but either way, they were clear on the subject of confession, just as they were on baptism and communion. See also Didache 4:14, 14:1, written in the late 1st century. "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure."

---

It depends on who you are referencing. If we are talking about the apostles, no they were not Catholic or Orthodox. Moreover, many of what are considered the early church fathers were likewise not Catholic or Orthodox. As discussed previously, the current iteration of Catholicism was foreign to the apostles and early church fathers.

That said, even if we have to look at extra-biblical sources for the belief you are espousing (which is in and of itself quite telling), not even your quote above suggests that Christians, saved by Christ's blood, will lose their salvation if they do not continuously confess sins.

---

I think the challenge Protestants run into with the line of thinking on the lineage of the Church from the Rock is similar to the concepts of the verse "many parts / one body".

Where that argument of "those people werent Catholics" (which of course they didnt use that term in that moment) is that the direct line of Pope to Pope to Pope and what was built from those that walked with Jesus and then the Apostles all ties directly back to them.

It's not like say Martin Luther who 45 generations later decided "look, immma add a word here, potentially lead billions of people to hell (God will sort that out) by softening up the meaning of some things etc by completely deviating from what had been written and part of the liturgy of the Catholic church for 1500 years cuz i sat down and pondered it and have some new ideas".

Therein lies the danger if I were to be a Protestant, I would think. It's like is Olympus Mons a face carved on Mars or simply a mountain that looks that way from millions of miles away perspective etc. Can lead to some very flawed conclusions.

However, it is all indisputable the origins of the things that are done in the Catholic mass and the foundational beliefs of the church that now have existed for millennia and much of which we are discussing and debating in this here thread.

As an example, since you say those guys arent Catholic, when did they start being Catholic?

1. *St. Peter* (c. 30-64/67)
2. *St. Linus* (c. 67-76)
3. *St. Anacletus* (also known as Cletus) (c. 76-88)
4. *St. Clement I* (c. 88-97)
5. *St. Evaristus* (c. 97-105)
6. *St. Alexander I* (c. 105-115)
7. *St. Sixtus I* (c. 115-125)
8. *St. Telesphorus* (c. 125-136)
9. *St. Hyginus* (c. 136-140)
10. *St. Pius I* (c. 140-155)
11. *St. Anicetus* (c. 155-166)
12. *St. Soter* (c. 166-174)
13. *St. Eleutherius* (c. 174-189)
14. *St. Victor I* (c. 189-198)
15. *St. Zephyrinus* (c. 198-217)
16. *St. Callixtus I* (c. 217-222)
17. *St. Urban I* (c. 222-230)
18. *St. Pontian* (c. 230-235)
19. *St. Anterus* (c. 235-236)
20. *St. Fabian* (c. 236-250)
.
.
.
.

?