I was doing some reading recently and someone more than a thousand years ago was writing about how the devil, Lucifer himself, once of course roamed the heavens and lost his eternal abode with God.

Now this guy wrote before Luther and the Protestant Reformation, but I find most Protestants I talk to say once youve been baptized and confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, that you good no matter what.

I wonder if that rule changed after Lucifer lost his eternal Heavenly abode. Certainly he believed in God. Makes one think. Would one not agree the Devil was good as God made him but became evil by his own choices?

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

So you're saying all sins are equal? None worse than the other?

---

Of course. Sin is not a continuous variable, it is a binary variable.

---

1) Rape = lie?

2) still no scripture to back up your opinion? Teach me.

---

You first.

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.

---

Attempt 3, Still no verse backing up your position.

Ok this topic is closed. You're, as always, entitled to your opinion.

---

Nope, I have sufficient scriptural support for my position, and will be glad to provide it in response to your scriptural support for the positions of the Vatican describes above.

---

I've provided countless verses at this point on many topics . Defend your position. You've provided none. Now people can disagree with my defense on other topics as Mothra and some others are trying to do. But if you want to enter the discourse, you gotta ante up.

Your move. Or I'm happy to continue entertaining the other discussions we're having.

---

You have not given one verse that says it is a thing if I don't play video games for a while that I will be punished for my sins less after I die.

---

I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not aware of any video game discussion. I've not discussed as a commencing topic plenary indulgences. That seems to be your or someone else's topic that you have a passion for. We can do it of course but there's plenty of other chicken on the bone for what we are healthily discussing thus far. And then you also seem to be saying all sins are equal. So I said:

Defend your position

You started (or someone not me) that topic so I said, ok sure, defend it even with sola scriptura and I'll entertain the discussion so…

Ball in your court. Your 2 topics seem to be plenary indulgences and all sins are created equal.

Lay out a defense and I'll respond. But don't ask I defend "against" your opinion while you haven't defended your assertion you want me to discuss that I'm not even really discussing as a commencing topic.

We can get to it eventually later if you refuse to defend your opinion. Could be weeks or months. Matters not.

---

The video games are one of the current (or recent) plenary indulgences. So, if you abstain from video games for a while, then you can get punished less for your sins after you die. I would like for you to provide actual scriptural support for that concept.

All sin is the same because all sin, and any sin, is sufficient to separate us from God. No one can say "my sin is not as bad as someone else's sin." I cannot say, for example, that my sin is less sinful than the sin of a murderer, even though I have never murdered someone. There is only one ultimate consequence of sin, and that is death. This certainly does not seem fair or just, for wouldn't the sins of a murder or a rapist or a child molester, or a terrorist seem greater than my sin of bitterness or envy or lust? Nevertheless, the same sacrifice was required for my sins as was required for the sins of a murder. God's grace is not "fair" from a human perspective, and that is what makes it grace.

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

Read my last post on the topic and then decide how you want to proceed. 5th attempt. Still no verses. That is the key to get engagement from me. Appreciate your opinion on it though. Seems you spent some time developing it in your mind

---

I have paraphrased the relevant verses in my post above. You did not recognize them?

Video games are just a concrete example, but you can provide scriptural support for the concept of Christians getting punished for their sins less after they die by doing something before they die. Jesus didn't tell the thief on the cross, "Truly I say to you, today you will be in purgatory and at some point after that you will be in paradise with me. This whole indulgences concept seems to be an affront to Christ's sacrifice.

---

lol. Bruh. Book chapter and verse. Lay it on me. Defend your position. You can't do it?

---

James 2:10 is quite specific that if you break any part of the law you break all of it.

Jesus equated looking at a woman in lust with adultery and hatred with murder. (You can look it up yourself if you don't believe me, just Google it).

However, that's not really my point. Rather, all sins are the same in that all sins separate us from God. It does not matter if a sin is "small" or "large." Even a "small" sin is sufficient to separate us from God. Furthermore, we are wholly incapable of paying the price for our sins, even the "small" ones. All sins are also the same in that they are covered by Christ's death on the cross. Not just the "small" ones but also the "large" ones.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

So you're saying all sins are equal? None worse than the other?

---

Of course. Sin is not a continuous variable, it is a binary variable.

---

1) Rape = lie?

2) still no scripture to back up your opinion? Teach me.

---

You first.

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.

---

Attempt 3, Still no verse backing up your position.

Ok this topic is closed. You're, as always, entitled to your opinion.

---

Nope, I have sufficient scriptural support for my position, and will be glad to provide it in response to your scriptural support for the positions of the Vatican describes above.

---

I've provided countless verses at this point on many topics . Defend your position. You've provided none. Now people can disagree with my defense on other topics as Mothra and some others are trying to do. But if you want to enter the discourse, you gotta ante up.

Your move. Or I'm happy to continue entertaining the other discussions we're having.

---

You have not given one verse that says it is a thing if I don't play video games for a while that I will be punished for my sins less after I die.

---

I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not aware of any video game discussion. I've not discussed as a commencing topic plenary indulgences. That seems to be your or someone else's topic that you have a passion for. We can do it of course but there's plenty of other chicken on the bone for what we are healthily discussing thus far. And then you also seem to be saying all sins are equal. So I said:

Defend your position

You started (or someone not me) that topic so I said, ok sure, defend it even with sola scriptura and I'll entertain the discussion so…

Ball in your court. Your 2 topics seem to be plenary indulgences and all sins are created equal.

Lay out a defense and I'll respond. But don't ask I defend "against" your opinion while you haven't defended your assertion you want me to discuss that I'm not even really discussing as a commencing topic.

We can get to it eventually later if you refuse to defend your opinion. Could be weeks or months. Matters not.

---

The video games are one of the current (or recent) plenary indulgences. So, if you abstain from video games for a while, then you can get punished less for your sins after you die. I would like for you to provide actual scriptural support for that concept.

All sin is the same because all sin, and any sin, is sufficient to separate us from God. No one can say "my sin is not as bad as someone else's sin." I cannot say, for example, that my sin is less sinful than the sin of a murderer, even though I have never murdered someone. There is only one ultimate consequence of sin, and that is death. This certainly does not seem fair or just, for wouldn't the sins of a murder or a rapist or a child molester, or a terrorist seem greater than my sin of bitterness or envy or lust? Nevertheless, the same sacrifice was required for my sins as was required for the sins of a murder. God's grace is not "fair" from a human perspective, and that is what makes it grace.

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

Read my last post on the topic and then decide how you want to proceed. 5th attempt. Still no verses. That is the key to get engagement from me. Appreciate your opinion on it though. Seems you spent some time developing it in your mind

---

I have paraphrased the relevant verses in my post above. You did not recognize them?

Video games are just a concrete example, but you can provide scriptural support for the concept of Christians getting punished for their sins less after they die by doing something before they die. Jesus didn't tell the thief on the cross, "Truly I say to you, today you will be in purgatory and at some point after that you will be in paradise with me. This whole indulgences concept seems to be an affront to Christ's sacrifice.

---

lol. Bruh. Book chapter and verse. Lay it on me. Defend your position. You can't do it?

---

James 2:10 is quite specific that if you break any part of the law you break all of it.

Jesus equated looking at a woman in lust with adultery and hatred with murder. (You can look it up yourself if you don't believe me, just Google it).

However, that's not really my point. Rather, all sins are the same in that all sins separate us from God. It does not matter if a sin is "small" or "large." Even a "small" sin is sufficient to separate us from God. Furthermore, we are wholly incapable of paying the price for our sins, even the "small" ones. All sins are also the same in that they are covered by Christ's death on the cross. Not just the "small" ones but also the "large" ones.

---

Finally! A verse. Ok cool. You have entered the chat. However still nothing from you on the indulgences topic.

Check 1 John 5:16-17. This is one of many verses that form the foundation of the Catholic catechesis on venial versus mortal sins.

And yes, the Catholic faith teaches that all sins separate us from God. No disagreement there. That even starts to broach the topic of purgatory but we will focus for now.

You should also understand, assuming you don't, that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we earn our salvation through our efforts, that is God's grace. However, it does teach that we have to work on our salvation and that faith requires works. I gave @mothra 18+ verses to that effect in a prior post. He disagreed with all of them I believe. Shrug.

Also, you don't need to suggest I google stuff. I'm very well versed in the scriptures, the positions of the Catholic Church and the various arguments and positions of Protestants. While I don't claim at all to know everything, and these debates and discussions help me personally sharpen the saw so to speak and maybe even help a few confused people now and again, if I don't remember a detail or want to go further on it, I know well where to look and who to trust and how to Google. My personal library on religious topics and the Catholic faith is vast. If you've read more than I have, I would be quite surprised and I would congratulate you as that is definitely a personal commitment by you to seek truth and understanding, as we all should, and the time required to do so.

On the works topic, since you mentioned James, maybe continue on down 4 tiny little verses further to James 2:14 and share your opinion.

Fre3dombear said:

---

I was doing some reading recently and someone more than a thousand years ago was writing about how the devil, Lucifer himself, once of course roamed the heavens and lost his eternal abode with God.

Now this guy wrote before Luther and the Protestant Reformation, but I find most Protestants I talk to say once youve been baptized and confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, that you good no matter what.

I wonder if that rule changed after Lucifer lost his eternal Heavenly abode. Certainly he believed in God. Makes one think. Would one not agree the Devil was good as God made him but became evil by his own choices?

---

You seem to have little understanding of the Gospel. Both Satan and man were made good. Both fell and became evil by their own choices, and thus both were evicted from God's abode. However, God provided mankind with a way back to Him through Jesus, by grace through faith. This is not offered to Satan and his demons. It is astounding how such a basic, central fact about the Christian faith can be so lost on someone who brags so much about their knowledge of it.

"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."

Is Romans 10:9 wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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."

Is Romans 10:9 wrong?

---

No it is not. However Romans 10:9 does not say "If you believe ... you are saved." Yet that is what you choose to believe. Why is your soteriology based on a misinterpretation of the verse?

Is James 2:17 wrong?

Quote:

---

Now this guy wrote before Luther and the Protestant Reformation, but I find most Protestants I talk to say once youve been baptized and confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, that you good no matter what.

---

Most are baptism optional churches these days, because thief on the cross.

Fre3dombear said:

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

---

The document in question.



From Catholic.com: "Indulgences are part of the Church's infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent's anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching."

So to clarify, if you are Roman Catholic in 2025, you *must* believe that fasting from video games can earn two plenary indulgences a day.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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."

Is Romans 10:9 wrong?

---

No it is not. However Romans 10:9 does not say "If you believe ... you are saved." Yet that is what you choose to believe. Why is your soteriology based on a misinterpretation of the verse?

Is James 2:17 wrong?

---

If that's a misinterpretation, then you should probably let Jesus know his soteriology is likewise screwed up since he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

Does James 2:17 contradict Romans 10:9... or Jesus for that matter?

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

---

The document in question.



From Catholic.com: "Indulgences are part of the Church's infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent's anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching."

So to clarify, if you are Roman Catholic in 2025, you *must* believe that fasting from video games can earn two plenary indulgences a day.

---

Ok. But what is the point? Another poster was discussing indulgences, not I, and the fact the Bible doesn't support them. I asked for proof and then finally they provided a verse but in a completely different topic. Maybe take the video game topic up with them. That wasn't a topic I was engaged in.

Or is there some question?

Re: the Wheaton mess: The scandal of the evangelical college is that there are not many good evangelical colleges. And many that claim to be evangelical are run by and/or filled with warmed-over progressives.@tlloydcline @AmReformer https://t.co/7wM3rBel00

— Jeremy Larson (@TheMundaneMuse) February 8, 2025

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

So you're saying all sins are equal? None worse than the other?

---

Of course. Sin is not a continuous variable, it is a binary variable.

---

1) Rape = lie?

2) still no scripture to back up your opinion? Teach me.

---

You first.

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.

---

Attempt 3, Still no verse backing up your position.

Ok this topic is closed. You're, as always, entitled to your opinion.

---

Nope, I have sufficient scriptural support for my position, and will be glad to provide it in response to your scriptural support for the positions of the Vatican describes above.

---

I've provided countless verses at this point on many topics . Defend your position. You've provided none. Now people can disagree with my defense on other topics as Mothra and some others are trying to do. But if you want to enter the discourse, you gotta ante up.

Your move. Or I'm happy to continue entertaining the other discussions we're having.

---

You have not given one verse that says it is a thing if I don't play video games for a while that I will be punished for my sins less after I die.

---

I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not aware of any video game discussion. I've not discussed as a commencing topic plenary indulgences. That seems to be your or someone else's topic that you have a passion for. We can do it of course but there's plenty of other chicken on the bone for what we are healthily discussing thus far. And then you also seem to be saying all sins are equal. So I said:

Defend your position

You started (or someone not me) that topic so I said, ok sure, defend it even with sola scriptura and I'll entertain the discussion so…

Ball in your court. Your 2 topics seem to be plenary indulgences and all sins are created equal.

Lay out a defense and I'll respond. But don't ask I defend "against" your opinion while you haven't defended your assertion you want me to discuss that I'm not even really discussing as a commencing topic.

We can get to it eventually later if you refuse to defend your opinion. Could be weeks or months. Matters not.

---

The video games are one of the current (or recent) plenary indulgences. So, if you abstain from video games for a while, then you can get punished less for your sins after you die. I would like for you to provide actual scriptural support for that concept.

All sin is the same because all sin, and any sin, is sufficient to separate us from God. No one can say "my sin is not as bad as someone else's sin." I cannot say, for example, that my sin is less sinful than the sin of a murderer, even though I have never murdered someone. There is only one ultimate consequence of sin, and that is death. This certainly does not seem fair or just, for wouldn't the sins of a murder or a rapist or a child molester, or a terrorist seem greater than my sin of bitterness or envy or lust? Nevertheless, the same sacrifice was required for my sins as was required for the sins of a murder. God's grace is not "fair" from a human perspective, and that is what makes it grace.

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

Read my last post on the topic and then decide how you want to proceed. 5th attempt. Still no verses. That is the key to get engagement from me. Appreciate your opinion on it though. Seems you spent some time developing it in your mind

---

I have paraphrased the relevant verses in my post above. You did not recognize them?

Video games are just a concrete example, but you can provide scriptural support for the concept of Christians getting punished for their sins less after they die by doing something before they die. Jesus didn't tell the thief on the cross, "Truly I say to you, today you will be in purgatory and at some point after that you will be in paradise with me. This whole indulgences concept seems to be an affront to Christ's sacrifice.

---

lol. Bruh. Book chapter and verse. Lay it on me. Defend your position. You can't do it?

---

James 2:10 is quite specific that if you break any part of the law you break all of it.

Jesus equated looking at a woman in lust with adultery and hatred with murder. (You can look it up yourself if you don't believe me, just Google it).

However, that's not really my point. Rather, all sins are the same in that all sins separate us from God. It does not matter if a sin is "small" or "large." Even a "small" sin is sufficient to separate us from God. Furthermore, we are wholly incapable of paying the price for our sins, even the "small" ones. All sins are also the same in that they are covered by Christ's death on the cross. Not just the "small" ones but also the "large" ones.

---

Finally! A verse. Ok cool. You have entered the chat. However still nothing from you on the indulgences topic.

Check 1 John 5:16-17. This is one of many verses that form the foundation of the Catholic catechesis on venial versus mortal sins.

And yes, the Catholic faith teaches that all sins separate us from God. No disagreement there. That even starts to broach the topic of purgatory but we will focus for now.

You should also understand, assuming you don't, that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we earn our salvation through our efforts, that is God's grace. However, it does teach that we have to work on our salvation and that faith requires works. I gave @mothra 18+ verses to that effect in a prior post. He disagreed with all of them I believe. Shrug.

Also, you don't need to suggest I google stuff. I'm very well versed in the scriptures, the positions of the Catholic Church and the various arguments and positions of Protestants. While I don't claim at all to know everything, and these debates and discussions help me personally sharpen the saw so to speak and maybe even help a few confused people now and again, if I don't remember a detail or want to go further on it, I know well where to look and who to trust and how to Google. My personal library on religious topics and the Catholic faith is vast. If you've read more than I have, I would be quite surprised and I would congratulate you as that is definitely a personal commitment by you to seek truth and understanding, as we all should, and the time required to do so.

On the works topic, since you mentioned James, maybe continue on down 4 tiny little verses further to James 2:14 and share your opinion.

---

Nothing on the topic of indulgences from me? On the indulgences topic, I'm not the one who claims that a follower of Christ will be punished following death for sins he or she committed, but that he or she can reduce or maybe even eliminate that punishment by taking a trip or staying away from video games for a while. That, as best I can tell, is what the concept of indulgences comes down to, and I find absolutely no support in the New Testament for it.

This was easily the best Super Bowl ad. pic.twitter.com/43QuQ1RpSQ

— Jon Elder | Amazon Growth | Private Label (@BlackLabelAdvsr) February 10, 2025

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I don't know anything about video games so have no desire to engage that topic.

---

The document in question.



From Catholic.com: "Indulgences are part of the Church's infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent's anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching."

So to clarify, if you are Roman Catholic in 2025, you *must* believe that fasting from video games can earn two plenary indulgences a day.

---

Ok. But what is the point? Another poster was discussing indulgences, not I, and the fact the Bible doesn't support them. I asked for proof and then finally they provided a verse but in a completely different topic. Maybe take the video game topic up with them. That wasn't a topic I was engaged in.

Or is there some question?

---

The reply mistakenly went to you...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If that's a misinterpretation, then you should probably let Jesus know his soteriology is likewise screwed up since he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

Does James 2:17 contradict Romans 10:9... or Jesus for that matter?

---

James 2:17 and Romans 10:9 do not contradict each other. A workless faith is dead faith and is at odds with the future salvation promised in Romans 10:9.

The issue is not misinterpretation. The issue is trying to impose a past/present tense on a verse that does not support it.

There is nothing to take up with Jesus. He knew stuff, Peter's denial of Him for example. So there is no conflict with his guarantee of the salvation of the thief (extremely short shelf life) or the woman.

The problem is when evangelical pastors - without such knowledge - start promising event salvation and OSAS and are forced into calling people saved backsliders or false converts to justify their unbiblical promises.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If that's a misinterpretation, then you should probably let Jesus know his soteriology is likewise screwed up since he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

Does James 2:17 contradict Romans 10:9... or Jesus for that matter?

---

James 2:17 and Romans 10:9 do not contradict each other. A workless faith is dead faith and is at odds with the future salvation promised in Romans 10:9.

The issue is not misinterpretation. The issue is trying to impose a past/present tense on a verse that does not support it.

There is nothing to take up with Jesus. He knew stuff, Peter's denial of Him for example. So there is no conflict with his guarantee of the salvation of the thief (extremely short shelf life) or the woman.

The problem is when evangelical pastors - without such knowledge - start promising event salvation and OSAS and are forced into calling people saved backsliders or false converts to justify their unbiblical promises.

---

The promise and assurance of salvation comes from the Bible, not evangelical pastors. You've been shown where in the Bible and how.

If you continue to believe that no one can know if they're saved until after they die, then you're going directly against the Bible.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Essentially what they're saying is that salvation is by grace.... except you have to work to keep that grace. Having to work to keep grace, is not grace. That'd be like a restaurant giving you a free meal as a gift - but you gotta clean some tables and do some dishes afterward, otherwise they'll bill you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you continue to believe that no one can know if they're saved until after they die, then you're going directly against the Bible.

---

...and yet despite your perpetual trotting out of Romans 10:9 as assurance of present salvation acquired at some time in the past, the actual text doesn't say anything of the sort. We shouldn't be misusing the Bible to try and prop up false theology. The scriptures say what they say.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Essentially what they're saying is that salvation is by grace.... except you have to work to keep that grace. Having to work to keep grace, is not grace. That'd be like a restaurant giving you a free meal as a gift - but you gotta clean some tables and do some dishes afterward, otherwise they'll bill you.

---

And if they give you a free meal but you don't eat it, what kind of craziness is that?

I don't do loving things towards my wife because I believe she will dump me if I don't, and I don't seek to grow in my faith because I believe God will dump me if I don't. Rather, "I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I have never heard any pastor who would argue for the security of the believer stand up and say, "Now that you are saved, so whatever you want!" Have any of you?

Quote:

---

I don't do loving things towards my wife because I believe she will dump me if I don't, and I don't seek to grow in my faith because I believe God will dump me if I don't. Rather, "I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

---

While all this is true, if you cheat on your wife, the odds that she will dump you are rather high. You can't really come back with "once married, always married!"

Likewise, though no spiritual power can separate you from Christ, everyone carrying a cross can make a conscious choice to put it down and "walk with Him no more." (John 6:66). Satan didn't force feed Eve a fruit.

Take a look at Acts 1:25: "apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell" Even Judas, despite the standard evangelical plotline being that Judas made a false confession and thus was never saved to prop up event salvation and OSAS. Judas was not saved not because he made a false confession at some point in the past. He was damned because, as the Bible says he "by transgression fell." If his confession had been false, he would have nothing to fall from. The Bible says that in black and white.

Stop trying to read flawed theology into the scripture, be it event salvation, OSAS, the rapture, tongues, whatever. Just take what it says at face value.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't do loving things towards my wife because I believe she will dump me if I don't, and I don't seek to grow in my faith because I believe God will dump me if I don't. Rather, "I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

---

While all this is true, if you cheat on your wife, the odds that she will dump you are rather high. You can't really come back with "once married, always married!"

Likewise, though no spiritual power can separate you from Christ, everyone carrying a cross can make a conscious choice to put it down and "walk with Him no more." (John 6:66). Satan didn't force feed Eve a fruit.

Take a look at Acts 1:25: "apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell" Even Judas, despite the standard evangelical plotline being that Judas made a false confession and thus was never saved to prop up event salvation and OSAS. Judas was not saved not because he made a false confession at some point in the past. He was damned because, as the Bible says he "by transgression fell." If his confession had been false, he would have nothing to fall from. The Bible says that in black and white.

Stop trying to read flawed theology into the scripture, be it event salvation, OSAS, the rapture, tongues, whatever about. Just take what it says at face value.

---

There's a difference between my wife and God, although they seem to be right approximately the same percentage of time.

Like physical birth, spiritual birth is an event, so "event salvation" doesn't look like "flawed theology." There is a point at which a person is not a follower of Jesus and a change to where he or she is a follower of Jesus. This is not something that happens when a person reaches a particular level of good works. This is an event. It is something that happens when a person recognizes that he or she cannot ever do enough to earn adoption as a child of God, but receives it anyway because of God's grace.

I have no idea why you are going on about the rapture or tongues.

D. C. Bear said:

---

There's a difference between my wife and God, although they seem to be right approximately the same percentage of time.

---

Quote:

---

Like physical birth, spiritual birth is an event, so "event salvation" doesn't look like "flawed theology." There is a point at which a person is not a follower of Jesus and a change to where he or she is a follower of Jesus. This is not something that happens when a person reaches a particular level of good works. This is an event. It is something that happens when a person recognizes that he or she cannot ever do enough to earn adoption as a child of God, but receives it anyway because of God's grace.

---

Also agree with this. The problem is that the entire process of being born again describes the process of how we are reconciled to God and begin our race. It's not talking about the finish line...and yes, that reconciliation with God absolutely occurs only through by grace, through faith in Christ's death on the cross. Without that, you're not even entered in the marathon.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you continue to believe that no one can know if they're saved until after they die, then you're going directly against the Bible.

---

...and yet despite your perpetual trotting out of Romans 10:9 as assurance of present salvation acquired at some time in the past, the actual text doesn't say anything of the sort. We shouldn't be misusing the Bible to try and prop up false theology. The scriptures say what they say.

---

"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." - 1 John 5:13

Yep, the scriptures say what they say.... getting you to believe them is apparently the hard part.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you continue to believe that no one can know if they're saved until after they die, then you're going directly against the Bible.

---

...and yet despite your perpetual trotting out of Romans 10:9 as assurance of present salvation acquired at some time in the past, the actual text doesn't say anything of the sort. We shouldn't be misusing the Bible to try and prop up false theology. The scriptures say what they say.

---

"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." - 1 John 5:13

Yep, the scriptures say what they say.... getting you to believe them is apparently the hard part.

---

The good news: I'm giving you a free house.

The bad news: it's in Detroit.

In all seriousness, someone like Ravi Zacharias...was he saved?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you continue to believe that no one can know if they're saved until after they die, then you're going directly against the Bible.

---

...and yet despite your perpetual trotting out of Romans 10:9 as assurance of present salvation acquired at some time in the past, the actual text doesn't say anything of the sort. We shouldn't be misusing the Bible to try and prop up false theology. The scriptures say what they say.

---

"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." - 1 John 5:13

Yep, the scriptures say what they say.... getting you to believe them is apparently the hard part.

---

The good news: I'm giving you a free house.

The bad news: it's in Detroit.

In all seriousness, someone like Ravi Zacharias...was he saved?

---

And the flight to Detroit... is faith.

Stop worrying about Ravi Zarcharias' flight, and take your trip. God is telling you that you can have assurance, but you'd rather reject it and continue living in fear that you can still go to Hell despite your faith if you don't do x and y. I just don't understand it. Besides, that isn't the Gospel, and it isn't having faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.

Quote:

---

Stop worrying about Ravi Zarcharias' flight, and take your trip.

---

When you see a burned out wreck on the side of the road, knowing how it happened has direct relevance for your trip.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Stop worrying about Ravi Zarcharias' flight, and take your trip.

---

When you see a burned out wreck on the side of the road, knowing how it happened has direct relevance for your trip.

---

That burnt out wreck was someone trying to get to the destination on their own efforts. If you have faith, you are riding on Jesus Airlines. 100% safety record. And nonstop to heaven, no stops in Purgatory.

When are you just going to accept what Scripture tells you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Stop worrying about Ravi Zarcharias' flight, and take your trip.

---

When you see a burned out wreck on the side of the road, knowing how it happened has direct relevance for your trip.

---

That burnt out wreck was someone trying to get to the destination on their own efforts. If you have faith, you are riding on Jesus Airlines. 100% safety record. And nonstop to heaven, no stops in Purgatory.

When are you just going to accept what Scripture tells you?

---

I have accepted what scripture tells me...the death of Christ has reconciled me with God by grace through faith. This was a chasm I could never cross by my works. I will be saved, so long as I run the race and am a good and faithful servant. Unlike the prodigal son, I'm not so arrogant that I demand that inheritance now.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Of course not. But they do explain it.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Stop worrying about Ravi Zarcharias' flight, and take your trip.

---

When you see a burned out wreck on the side of the road, knowing how it happened has direct relevance for your trip.

---

That burnt out wreck was someone trying to get to the destination on their own efforts. If you have faith, you are riding on Jesus Airlines. 100% safety record. And nonstop to heaven, no stops in Purgatory.

When are you just going to accept what Scripture tells you?

---

I have accepted what scripture tells me...the death of Christ has reconciled me with God by grace through faith. This was a chasm I could never cross by my works. I will be saved, so long as I run the race and am a good and faithful servant. Unlike the prodigal son, I'm not so arrogant that I demand that inheritance now.

---

You obviously don't accept what Scripture says because you continue to make salvation contigent upon your own performance, despite Scripture directly telling you otherwise. Look at what you just said - "I will be saved... so as long as I do x and y". You've been repeatedly shown that this is not the Gospel of grace according to Scripture. If salvation is dependent on our performance, then there is no way Paul could know that a person confessing Jesus is Lord and believing in their heart that Jesus was raised will save them (Romans 10:9) without knowing if their performance was sufficient or not. There is no way that John could declare that those who believe HAVE eternal life (1 John 5:13). There is no way Jesus could have saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7. Despite all the evidence from Scripture, you continue to reject it in favor of a lifetime of anxiety from never being sure if you're saved despite your faith. As I pointed out, this isn't even "faith". Scripture says faith is the assurance of things hoped for. Faith is assurance, and grace is grace plus nothing. Yet you seem intent on stripping all this from their meaning. That clearly means you're not accepting what Scripture says.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Of course not. But they do explain it.

---

If not, then salvation is clearly not dependent on our works.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Essentially what they're saying is that salvation is by grace.... except you have to work to keep that grace. Having to work to keep grace, is not grace. That'd be like a restaurant giving you a free meal as a gift - but you gotta clean some tables and do some dishes afterward, otherwise they'll bill you.

---

And if they give you a free meal but you don't eat it, what kind of craziness is that?

I don't do loving things towards my wife because I believe she will dump me if I don't, and I don't seek to grow in my faith because I believe God will dump me if I don't. Rather, "I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I have never heard any pastor who would argue for the security of the believer stand up and say, "Now that you are saved, so whatever you want!" Have any of you?

---

And yet, your very last comment says you gots to do stuff. Just as is explicitly written in the 20 verses I've provided in this thread.

But if you want to believe your Martin Luther faith alone stuff, well 1) you don't even understand what faith meant when they wrote it and 2) you'll be sadly mistaken. But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may be punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" which, of course, appears nowhere in the Bible other than to say "not by faith alone"

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Essentially what they're saying is that salvation is by grace.... except you have to work to keep that grace. Having to work to keep grace, is not grace. That'd be like a restaurant giving you a free meal as a gift - but you gotta clean some tables and do some dishes afterward, otherwise they'll bill you.

---

And if they give you a free meal but you don't eat it, what kind of craziness is that?

I don't do loving things towards my wife because I believe she will dump me if I don't, and I don't seek to grow in my faith because I believe God will dump me if I don't. Rather, "I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I have never heard any pastor who would argue for the security of the believer stand up and say, "Now that you are saved, so whatever you want!" Have any of you?

---

And of course, that's the thing. There is literally no free meal. If you truly only had faith and "sprinkled" as Mothra calls it, the Bible is explicit, you're not in a good spot.

Now youve been saying "Well no no I do good stiff" so you apparently are into doing the works that FAITH requires if you study the Greek of course and the explicit verses I've already noted jist to name a few.

I'm sure none of the protesters on the thread watched the faith and works video I gave you but it lays it all out in black and white. From the beginning. Not what some dudes 50 generations after the death of our Lord thought up. And all of which is consistent with the writings of the church fathers that walked with Christ or His followers.