Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

So, which Pope was it that decided "Hey, I've got a great idea for a fundraiser, let's sell a get out of punishment card for sin?" And, pray tell, where in the Bible did Jesus ever propose such a system?

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.

---

None of those listed were Roman Catholic. It is very likely, almost certain, that none held the beliefs required by the Roman Catholic Chuirch today on penalty of anathema (and thus, Hell) such as the dogmas of Mary.

The oft repeated claim that Roman Catholicism holds beliefs that have existed since the inception of Jesus' church by the apostles is a very flawed and verily easily debunked one. I have repeatedly shown this in another thread. It's the same thread where you "blocked" me so you wouldn't have to engage my points. I suppose that's an effective method of preserving one's beliefs, but obviously it isn't an intellectually honest one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

To do so would be to cease being Roman Catholic.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

So, which Pope was it that decided "Hey, I've got a great idea for a fundraiser, let's sell a get out of punishment card for sin?" And, pray tell, where in the Bible did Jesus ever propose such a system?

---

Selling spiritual gifts is verboten of course. Just ask Ananias and Saphira how that worked out for em

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

So, which Pope was it that decided "Hey, I've got a great idea for a fundraiser, let's sell a get out of punishment card for sin?" And, pray tell, where in the Bible did Jesus ever propose such a system?

---

Selling spiritual gifts is verboten of course. Just ask Ananias and Saphira how that worked out for em

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

Fre3dombear said:

---

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).

---

Yes.

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

From what source do those "recommendations" flow? And just FYI, I'm asking for citations to the source - the Word of God, not some writing by an early "church father."

And how often must we confess to be saved again (and again, and again)?

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

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

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

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

---

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

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

---

If it isn't apparent by now, he doesn't seem to answer the questions he doesn't like. I have numerous unanswered questions on this thread.

Simple answer is that it never happened. Some indulgences used to be based on giving alms. When that practice was abused, the pope shut it down.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

---

Maybe you don't know but again, the penalty in the Bible for peddling spiritual "things" was death as demonstrated in Acts by the names people I mentioned

Do you understand this or shall I provide the verse?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Simple answer is that it never happened. Some indulgences used to be based on giving alms. When that practice was abused, the pope shut it down.

---

Lol

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

---

If it isn't apparent by now, he doesn't seem to answer the questions he doesn't like. I have numerous unanswered questions on this thread.

---

I will answer any question. I travel a lot. Not always on these threads. Any question is fair game. I have an answer for every single one.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

---

Even the giving of alms wasn't to avoid punishment of sin in and of itself as even 1000 years ago long before the Baptist faith was founded, that wasn't the practice or the full purpose of

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

the well documented basis for a Pope as leader of the Catholic Christian faith on earth exists in the Bible and the church fathers. It's also important as the intention is for us to reach eternal salvation with Jesus and bring as many people as we can with us. Even amongst the Catholic Church as well organized as it is, obviously there are differing opinions on things and that's with a well defined 2,000 year old org structure dating back to Jesus and the apostles.

Imagine how much harder it is when Pastor Robert hangs out a shingle and starts teaching people what he thinks the Bible means when he reads it! Total chaos.

So it goes like this to name a few evidentiary verses etc that are the Biblical basis of a Catholic Christian Pope

Matthew 16:18-19

Acts 1:15-26

Luke 22:31-32

John 21:15-17

And of course early church Fathers writings of, as we know, Peter being appointed leader by Jesus and the first Catholic Pope as Catholics acknowledge him to be.


These church Fathers include Clement, Ignateus, Iranaenus to name a few.

If none of them were Catholic as you say @mothra, when did they decide to start being Catholic in your opinion? Or is even Pope Francis not Catholic in your opinion? (I know more than a few Catholics that would agree with you if you think so)

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.

---

Some of the hubris of some of these posts from allegedly knowledgeable people amazes me.

As has been clear in all my posts, my preference is to educate myself on what the Bible says, the traditions we are called explicitly in the Bible to follow and what was written, taught and explained by those that walked with Jesus and the generations immediately thereafter.

Then you have someone with so much pride say essentially "if that's what God means, wow that's super weak!"

And imagine that being your opinion and then you come to find out at your judgement, 1) you are wrong and 2) that is what God meant. Yikes!

Wow. What a scary prideful position to put oneself in.

Thus far in my engagement of this thread I've mainly seen Catholics, or people in a Way being Catholic apologists and orthodox-type thought people saying here here here and here Jesus says you must do these things and then you see the Protestants / Baptist's saying, nah all you have to do is have an event, confess Jesus is Lord and trust me…you good. You're OSAS. Hitler was baptized as we understand it. Likely confessed Jesus is Lord in his childhood.

That is one frightful view of one's and one's family's potential eternal salvation. One could say it may even be inspired by the devil "hey there Protestant, the stuff the Catholics point you to in the Bible and written by learned scholars of the faith 1500 years before blessed Luther say you have to do this but don't worry, you really don't, Jesus lied or it's not what he meant when you read it plainly, just John 3:16it and you good man"

Man that would scare me to hope I could ignore all those verses just because I found one that, if I ignore the rest of the New Testament, I guess I'm good. I don't even have to work at it.Heaven is so easy to attain. Most people make it to heaven (despite, again, what Jesus said explicitly) Just say I believe and truly believe in your heart and you get Heaven. It's so simple. Yet completely anathema to so many verses in the Bible that I've already posted as nauseum

I wish one well, but when ones moment comes, can't imagine one wouldn't think, "wow I hope ignoring all those other things was the way. Please be the way"

Maybe they'll think about Ol freedombeer and some considerations he suggested from my many many hours studying and reading and learning before it's too late.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

From what source do those "recommendations" flow? And just FYI, I'm asking for citations to the source - the Word of God, not some writing by an early "church father."

And how often must we confess to be saved again (and again, and again)?

---

Why the quotes of a "church father"? Marginalizing the traditions mentioned explicitly in the Bible and those that documented them that walked with Christ or his immediate followers? Why? Do Baptist's not ponder the writings of say Roger Williams (1603-1683)? You still never answered my question of who founded the Baptist church (6 times I've asked now).

Since it appears we're back to being extremely pedantic I will ensure to respond in kind.

You stated "From what source do those "recommendations" flow?"

To which I provide this source:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that one must confess serious sins at least once a year (CCC 1457).

CCC 1457 states:

"According to the Church's command, 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.' Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time."

You then stated " And just FYI, I'm asking for citations to the source - the Word of God, not some writing by an early "church father.""

So before there's a pedantic gotcha type game where you then say "you didn't answer my question" I'll need you to be more clear. What I stated above is not from a Church Father source.

Are you asking 1) what Bible verses speak to confession or 2) show me in the Bible where it says how often to go to confession?

I think from there I've basically simplified what I think you're trying to ask me in a way I can respond without wasting time spinning in circles and you avoiding responding to my response. Thought we'd moved past that but maybe not. If I'm misunderstanding and we have moved past that, my apologies.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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)
.
.
.
.

?

---

I would submit none of them were Catholic. I would also submit that there was never an idea for a pope position expressed in scripture.

---

Was Saint Augustine Catholic?

---

Again, which pope decided that it would be a good idea to provide a way to avoid punishment for sin via a monetary payment, and where in the Bible did Jesus propose such a system?

---

If it isn't apparent by now, he doesn't seem to answer the questions he doesn't like. I have numerous unanswered questions on this thread.

---

I will answer any question. I travel a lot. Not always on these threads. Any question is fair game. I have an answer for every single one.

---

Lol, right. You couldn't answer my questions so you had to block me. Everyone is aware of this fact, so it's a wonder where this hubris is coming from.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

From what source do those "recommendations" flow? And just FYI, I'm asking for citations to the source - the Word of God, not some writing by an early "church father."

And how often must we confess to be saved again (and again, and again)?

---

Why the quotes of a "church father"? Marginalizing the traditions mentioned explicitly in the Bible and those that documented them that walked with Christ or his immediate followers? Why? Do Baptist's not ponder the writings of say Roger Williams (1603-1683)? You still never answered my question of who founded the Baptist church (6 times I've asked now).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that one must confess serious sins at least once a year (CCC 1457).

CCC 1457 states:

"According to the Church's command, 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.' Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time."

---

He didn't ask to state what the belief is, he asked you to source this belief from Scripture.

I guess you DO have an answer for every question - problem is, it doesn't really answer the question.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Thus far in my engagement of this thread I've mainly seen Catholics, or people in a Way being Catholic apologists and orthodox-type thought people saying here here here and here Jesus says you must do these things and then you see the Protestants / Baptist's saying, nah all you have to do is have an event, confess Jesus is Lord and trust me…you good. You're OSAS. Hitler was baptized as we understand it. Likely confessed Jesus is Lord in his childhood.

That is one frightful view of one's and one's family's potential eternal salvation. One could say it may even be inspired by the devil "hey there Protestant, the stuff the Catholics point you to in the Bible and written by learned scholars of the faith 1500 years before blessed Luther say you have to do this but don't worry, you really don't, Jesus lied or it's not what he meant when you read it plainly, just John 3:16it and you good man"

---

Basically.

The thing is, Luther in no way advocated what is commonly understood to be the modern evangelical gospel.

His third and fourth point nailed to the Wittenburg door are:

"3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Luthers big beefs were with the papacy, treasury of merit, indulgences, the priestly celibacy instituted in the Lateran councils, the stubborn insistence on Latin, the refusal to allow laymen to read scripture, and the works based justification of the RCC, some of which the post Vatican 2 RCC has walked back.

Then there's Matthew 25:31-46 where the Lord concludes by saying "Then shall he answer them, saying Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..."

But I suppose we will have a dispensationalist wander by to tell us that part of the New Testament doesn't apply to Christians either. Sola theologica, sola opinionata.

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

Some of the hubris of some of these posts from allegedly knowledgeable people amazes me.

As has been clear in all my posts, my preference is to educate myself on what the Bible says, the traditions we are called explicitly in the Bible to follow and what was written, taught and explained by those that walked with Jesus and the generations immediately thereafter.

Then you have someone with so much pride say essentially "if that's what God means, wow that's super weak!"

And imagine that being your opinion and then you come to find out at your judgement, 1) you are wrong and 2) that is what God meant. Yikes!

Wow. What a scary prideful position to put oneself in.

Thus far in my engagement of this thread I've mainly seen Catholics, or people in a Way being Catholic apologists and orthodox-type thought people saying here here here and here Jesus says you must do these things and then you see the Protestants / Baptist's saying, nah all you have to do is have an event, confess Jesus is Lord and trust me…you good. You're OSAS. Hitler was baptized as we understand it. Likely confessed Jesus is Lord in his childhood.

That is one frightful view of one's and one's family's potential eternal salvation. One could say it may even be inspired by the devil "hey there Protestant, the stuff the Catholics point you to in the Bible and written by learned scholars of the faith 1500 years before blessed Luther say you have to do this but don't worry, you really don't, Jesus lied or it's not what he meant when you read it plainly, just John 3:16it and you good man"

Man that would scare me to hope I could ignore all those verses just because I found one that, if I ignore the rest of the New Testament, I guess I'm good. I don't even have to work at it.Heaven is so easy to attain. Most people make it to heaven (despite, again, what Jesus said explicitly) Just say I believe and truly believe in your heart and you get Heaven. It's so simple. Yet completely anathema to so many verses in the Bible that I've already posted as nauseum

I wish one well, but when ones moment comes, can't imagine one wouldn't think, "wow I hope ignoring all those other things was the way. Please be the way"

Maybe they'll think about Ol freedombeer and some considerations he suggested from my many many hours studying and reading and learning before it's too late.

---

It is not hubris, but humility, to admit that one continues to sin and to observe that one confesses those sins more quickly than he has in the past.

Find me something in the New Testament that says you can avoid punishment for sins by making a cash payment, or, in lieu of cash, avoiding video games.

Find me something in the New Testament that says a Christian must confess sins to a priest who serves as an intermediary between God and Christians in order to be forgiven.

Find me something in the New Testament that distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins.

Quote:

---

Find me something in the New Testament that says you can avoid punishment for sins by making a cash payment, or, in lieu of cash, avoiding video games.

Find me something in the New Testament that says a Christian must confess sins to a priest who serves as an intermediary between God and Christians in order to be forgiven.

Find me something in the New Testament that distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins.

---

Let alone the new testament, none of these things were practiced by the church of the first millenium during which the Bible was not printed and distributed because the technology to do this did not exist. Nor was it practiced for the first 400 years of Christian history before the New Testament canon was settled theology.

Asceticism is a form of Christian self-discipline to live out Christ's command to "go and sin no more" and try to live in a way that is pleasing to God.

The oldest Christian writings still in existence today (the Didache) indicates that Christians fasted on Wednesday and Friday. Reader, do you do this? If not, what is your reason for not doing this in light of Christ's teaching in Matthew 4:2, Matthew 9:15, Matthew 17:21, Luke 2:37, Acts 13:2, and Acts 14:23 among others?

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1st John 2:6)

Confessions are made directly to God, the priest serving as an accountability partner.

All sins are mortal.

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Thus far in my engagement of this thread I've mainly seen Catholics, or people in a Way being Catholic apologists and orthodox-type thought people saying here here here and here Jesus says you must do these things and then you see the Protestants / Baptist's saying, nah all you have to do is have an event, confess Jesus is Lord and trust me…you good. You're OSAS. Hitler was baptized as we understand it. Likely confessed Jesus is Lord in his childhood.

That is one frightful view of one's and one's family's potential eternal salvation. One could say it may even be inspired by the devil "hey there Protestant, the stuff the Catholics point you to in the Bible and written by learned scholars of the faith 1500 years before blessed Luther say you have to do this but don't worry, you really don't, Jesus lied or it's not what he meant when you read it plainly, just John 3:16it and you good man"

---

Basically.

The thing is, Luther in no way advocated what is commonly understood to be the modern evangelical gospel.

His third and fourth point nailed to the Wittenburg door are:

"3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Luthers big beefs were with the papacy, treasury of merit, indulgences, the priestly celibacy instituted in the Lateran councils, the stubborn insistence on Latin, the refusal to allow laymen to read scripture, and the works based justification of the RCC, some of which the post Vatican 2 RCC has walked back.

Then there's Matthew 25:31-46 where the Lord concludes by saying "Then shall he answer them, saying Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..."

But I suppose we will have a dispensationalist wander by to tell us that part of the New Testament doesn't apply to Christians either. Sola theologica, sola opinionata.

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

---

I'm saying that salvation or the lack thereof is not something we as humans determine. It is something that God pronounces on the day we pass from this world and stand in front of him. So for me to "claim" salvation and OSAS in the middle of my life on earth is every bit as arrogant as it is for Joel Osteen to claim a Gulfstream.

I trust Christ for my salvation, and that his judgements are just, and that is enough. I understand that having done so, it is also an imperative that I "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8) and that if I fail to do so insofar as I am capable of doing it, I may be dismissed from His presence as an unprofitable servant.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:" (Matthew 6:13).

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

Some of the hubris of some of these posts from allegedly knowledgeable people amazes me.

As has been clear in all my posts, my preference is to educate myself on what the Bible says, the traditions we are called explicitly in the Bible to follow and what was written, taught and explained by those that walked with Jesus and the generations immediately thereafter.

Then you have someone with so much pride say essentially "if that's what God means, wow that's super weak!"

And imagine that being your opinion and then you come to find out at your judgement, 1) you are wrong and 2) that is what God meant. Yikes!

Wow. What a scary prideful position to put oneself in.

Thus far in my engagement of this thread I've mainly seen Catholics, or people in a Way being Catholic apologists and orthodox-type thought people saying here here here and here Jesus says you must do these things and then you see the Protestants / Baptist's saying, nah all you have to do is have an event, confess Jesus is Lord and trust me…you good. You're OSAS. Hitler was baptized as we understand it. Likely confessed Jesus is Lord in his childhood.

That is one frightful view of one's and one's family's potential eternal salvation. One could say it may even be inspired by the devil "hey there Protestant, the stuff the Catholics point you to in the Bible and written by learned scholars of the faith 1500 years before blessed Luther say you have to do this but don't worry, you really don't, Jesus lied or it's not what he meant when you read it plainly, just John 3:16it and you good man"

Man that would scare me to hope I could ignore all those verses just because I found one that, if I ignore the rest of the New Testament, I guess I'm good. I don't even have to work at it.Heaven is so easy to attain. Most people make it to heaven (despite, again, what Jesus said explicitly) Just say I believe and truly believe in your heart and you get Heaven. It's so simple. Yet completely anathema to so many verses in the Bible that I've already posted as nauseum

I wish one well, but when ones moment comes, can't imagine one wouldn't think, "wow I hope ignoring all those other things was the way. Please be the way"

Maybe they'll think about Ol freedombeer and some considerations he suggested from my many many hours studying and reading and learning before it's too late.

---

It is not hubris, but humility, to admit that one continues to sin and to observe that one confesses those sins more quickly than he has in the past.

Find me something in the New Testament that says you can avoid punishment for sins by making a cash payment, or, in lieu of cash, avoiding video games.

Find me something in the New Testament that says a Christian must confess sins to a priest who serves as an intermediary between God and Christians in order to be forgiven.

Find me something in the New Testament that distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins.

---

If sanctification doesn't mean sinning less, it seems a weak sort of sanctification.

You asked which pope thought cash payments to avoid punishment for sin was a good idea. I would ask you the same question; I don't think you'll find one.

Regarding confession, see 2 Corinthians 5:18, John 20:21-23, James 5:13-15.

Regarding mortal and venial sins, see 1 John 5:16-17.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

---

I'm saying that salvation or the lack thereof is not something we as humans determine. It is something that God pronounces on the day we pass from this world and stand in front of him. So for me to "claim" salvation and OSAS in the middle of my life on earth is every bit as arrogant as it is for Joel Osteen to claim a Gulfstream.

I trust Christ for my salvation, and that his judgements are just, and that is enough. I understand that having done so, it is also an imperative that I "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8) and that if I fail to do so insofar as I am capable of doing it, I may be dismissed from His presence as an unprofitable servant.

---

Jesus does not leave us to guess. That's why He gave us his word through his aposltes in Scripture. If you're saying one can't "claim" salvation and OSAS and we have no idea we are saved until after we die, then you're going directly against God's word: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

You aren't fully trusting in Jesus for your salvation, if you're also trusting in your works in addition to your faith. That is not the Gospel. Good fruits are what true believers wil produce if given the time and opportunity, but it is not what saves them. The New Testsament repeatedly makes this clear, either by words or by direct example where Jesus declares someone saved. What did the thief on the cross or the sinful woman in Luke 7 do for the "least of these"?

"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" - Romans 10:9. Why complicate such a simple Gospel by adding your own performance into it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

---

I'm saying that salvation or the lack thereof is not something we as humans determine. It is something that God pronounces on the day we pass from this world and stand in front of him. So for me to "claim" salvation and OSAS in the middle of my life on earth is every bit as arrogant as it is for Joel Osteen to claim a Gulfstream.

I trust Christ for my salvation, and that his judgements are just, and that is enough. I understand that having done so, it is also an imperative that I "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8) and that if I fail to do so insofar as I am capable of doing it, I may be dismissed from His presence as an unprofitable servant.

---

"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" - Romans 10:9. Why complicate such a simple Gospel by adding your own performance into it?

---

Good question. Why do you think Paul wrote over 400 other verses in the letter besides that one?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

---

I'm saying that salvation or the lack thereof is not something we as humans determine. It is something that God pronounces on the day we pass from this world and stand in front of him. So for me to "claim" salvation and OSAS in the middle of my life on earth is every bit as arrogant as it is for Joel Osteen to claim a Gulfstream.

I trust Christ for my salvation, and that his judgements are just, and that is enough. I understand that having done so, it is also an imperative that I "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8) and that if I fail to do so insofar as I am capable of doing it, I may be dismissed from His presence as an unprofitable servant.

---

"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" - Romans 10:9. Why complicate such a simple Gospel by adding your own performance into it?

---

Good question. Why do you think Paul wrote over 400 other verses in the letter besides that one?

---

Any of them negate what he said here? Especially considering it's consistent with what the whole of the Gospel is telling us?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So be clear - are you saying that salvation is solely determined by how a person treats the "least of these" and has nothing to do with their belief/faith in Jesus? Because that parable you're referencing does not even mention it. Who are the "least of these", btw?

---

I'm saying that salvation or the lack thereof is not something we as humans determine. It is something that God pronounces on the day we pass from this world and stand in front of him. So for me to "claim" salvation and OSAS in the middle of my life on earth is every bit as arrogant as it is for Joel Osteen to claim a Gulfstream.

I trust Christ for my salvation, and that his judgements are just, and that is enough. I understand that having done so, it is also an imperative that I "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8) and that if I fail to do so insofar as I am capable of doing it, I may be dismissed from His presence as an unprofitable servant.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:" (Matthew 6:13).

---

It is not arrogant and it is not a Gulfstream to accept the Gospel's claim that we, undeserving as we are, would be given the gift of eternal life that begins when we accept it and continues through this life and the life to come. It is, rather, incredibly humbling.

We do what good that we do and we confess what sins we still commit not to earn our salvation, but because we have been adopted as children of God.