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.

---

Truth!

And sadly for our Protestant brothers their pastor Bob or whoever telling them "I read the words and this is what it says" is a false reaching. And each time they tell someone just love Jesus you don't have to do anything else, they are leading themselves and the flock astray

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You aren't fully trusting in Jesus for your salvation, if you're also trusting in your works in addition to your faith.

---

Absolutely correct (that is, someone who trusts in works and faith for salvation, not saying that I do this).

Quote:

---

Good fruits are what true believers wil produce if given the time and opportunity, but it is not what saves them.

---

Man walks the aisle, prays the sinners prayer, and goes on to live a secular life. Not an overtly evil one, just a secular one. Doesn't pray, doesn't fast, doesn't go to church or goes occasionally at best. He says he is Christian, but in fact his practiced religion is moralistic, therapeutic, deism.

Is such a person saved because he walked the aisle, prayed a prayer, and believes he is saved? He sincerely believes he is saved because a preacher told him Romans 10:9 once.

---

Ummmmm you do Realize that even the act of saying "I believe" is a work right? How do you know you're believing enough? You have no way to measure and no way to know how God measures. So even then you still have to trust in God's grace and then show him through the actions of your faith, not just mumbling a couple of words and you good.

You believe in the 10 commandments no? How can you follow those commands without doing works? It's impossible. You can't. Completely neuters the believe of I just say I believe". Why? Cuz you gotta do that works that are explicitly written. I jotted down several of them earlier in the thread to try to help out.

You can't honor your father and mother without an action. Impossible. And yet you're saying proudly "all I have to do is have faith and believe!"

Even you would disagree with yourself. It's very simple. But pride gets in the way.

So go ahead and have faith alone, don't honor your father and mother or any of the other commandments and see how confidently you think that gets you where you think it does.

Don't over complicate it but know many are called and few are chosen, the path is wide and very very few follow the narrow. It's hard. It's not as simple as just "sprinkle" and I believe.

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

And what if you had died before you randomly experienced your "event" around the age of say 9-12?

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad. Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

And what if you had died before you randomly experienced your "event" around the age of say 9-12?

---

One does not "randomly" experience the call of God to repent of one's sin. Had my parents had me "baptized" as a baby, a practice that did not really appear until about the 5th or 6th century A.D., that would certainly not have done me any good.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

And what if you had died before you randomly experienced your "event" around the age of say 9-12?

---

One does not "randomly" experience the call of God to repent of one's sin. Had my parents had me "baptized" as a baby, a practice that did not really appear until about the 5th or 6th century A.D., that would certainly not have done me any good.

---

Annnnnnd you didn't answer the question. Not surprised. So what would happen had you not baptized? It's "random" in that Protestants all her the call around the same time, coincidentally.

PS btw just read up on Tertullian and at a minimum you're wayyy off

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad.


Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

---

What you have written above that I quote below is not comprehensible English.

"But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible."

Quote:

---

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

---

Yes, you are absolutely misunderstanding my position. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, and I have never said it was.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

"Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

EXACTLY!!! However, youve beenn quite clear that no pastor says "no go and live a Godly life (works) because why would they when all you have to do is believe? In fact you'd say it's more likey they'd say "just believe. Faith alone. Osas"

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad.


Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

---

What you have written above that I quote below is not comprehensible English.

"But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible."

Quote:

---

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

---

Yes, you are absolutely misunderstanding my position. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, and I have never said it was.

---

Got it. Can't keep everyone's varied Protestant position clear.

So, for you, #1 is unnecessary but #2 is necessary, correct?

And if you just believe but aren't baptized ever, you're good right?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad.


Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

---

What you have written above that I quote below is not comprehensible English.

"But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible."

Quote:

---

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

---

Yes, you are absolutely misunderstanding my position. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, and I have never said it was.

---

Ah typos. Fixed them. Thx.

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad.


Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

---

What you have written above that I quote below is not comprehensible English.

"But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible."

Quote:

---

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

---

Yes, you are absolutely misunderstanding my position. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, and I have never said it was.

---

Got it. Can't keep everyone's varied Protestant position clear.

So, for you, #1 is unnecessary but #2 is necessary, correct?

And if you just believe but aren't baptized ever, you're good right?

---

Believe what, and believe how?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Zero Word salad.


Just things that make you question that no works are required. When people say "word salad " it's just a cop out they can't dispute.

---

What you have written above that I quote below is not comprehensible English.

"But yet, you seem to do works it appears so maybe you good. But may he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible."

Quote:

---

Your belief is you just say you believe. Then OSAS.

So at a minimum you must do 2 works in your belief: 1) baptize and 2) believe. Then OSAS.

Are you now walking that back?

Am I misunderstanding your position?

---

Yes, you are absolutely misunderstanding my position. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, and I have never said it was.

---

Got it. Can't keep everyone's varied Protestant position clear.

So, for you, #1 is unnecessary but #2 is necessary, correct?

And if you just believe but aren't baptized ever, you're good right?

---

Believe what, and believe how?

---

Believe Jesus is our Lord and saviour. "How" is works and you're not into that, which we have established.

Meaning to give an example, you could just close your eyes and say "Jesus, I believe you are Lord and I love you with all of my heart" and then event theology happens and OSAS.

Thoughts?

On a different topic this article is anbout Our Lady of Guadalupe and the images that can be seen in her eyes of people that witnessed this event in the early 1500s. The tilma is still on display to this day in Mexico City.

Someone said in this thread this is just a trick by the devil.

Thoughts? If you've never seen the microscopic images, search for them. Truly amazing

https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/science-sees-what-mary-saw-from-juan-diegos-tilma.html

Quote:

---

bishop; a woman of dark complexion, possibly a Negro slave who was in the bishop's service;

---

So 1500 years after Christ...500 years after the founding of the RCC...you're telling me that RCC Bishops owned slaves? That's not a good look.

The odds of the actual Theotokos appearing to further the missionary work of such an organization is approximately zero.

I'm going with trick of the devil.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Believe what, and believe how?

---

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." (Luke 18:13)

The origin of the most important prayer in Christianity: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14)

The starting gun of the race which ends at the finish line of salvation.

Fre3dombear said:

---

And what if you had died before you randomly experienced your "event" around the age of say 9-12?

---

You're automatically saved until the age of accountability when you lose the automatic salvation you were born with and have to pray the sinners prayer to get it back. So if you die between the age of accountability and praying the sinners prayer I guess either Jesus saves you anyway because he is nice (probably the default position of most Evangelicals, based on "Be ye nice because I am nice." [1st Peter 1:16 NKT] ) or you are toast because obviously if you died in that interval you clearly weren't one of the elect (sounds more Calvinist to my ear).

But the infant baptism + delayed communion + confirmation process is sort of the same thing, just changing the timing of the baptism.

The practice of the church of the first millenium was to baptize infants, chrismate infants, commune infants, and bring them fully into the family of God eliminating the mental gymnastics the other two positions require.

Quote:

---

in favor of a lifetime of anxiety from never being sure if you're saved despite your faith.

---

I think I have identified the problem here.

I do not live under a lifetime of anxiety knowing that my race is not complete yet, that it began with my reconciliation with God through Chirst's death and ends at the finish line of salvation. The reason I have no anxiety is that all such judgements are in Christ's hands. The declaration we all hope to hear - "well done good and faithful servant" - is wholly in his domain and authority to make...and I am good with that. He is a far more perfect judge than I, even to those he says "Depart from me, I never knew you."

On the other hand, you feel anxiety in such a scenario and thus subscribe to a theology that takes this authority out of His hands and puts it in yours.

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 do certain things. Unlike the prodigal son, I'm not so arrogant that I demand that inheritance now.

---

FIFY. Hard to call that anything other than a works-based faith.

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

Fre3dombear 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.

---

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

---

No, you did not provide anything of the sort. None of the verses you provided plainly stated works are necessary for salvation. Not a single one.

They said works are an outcropping of faith, and something God has planned for us. None of them mentioned them as a requirement for salvation.

And that is what you continue to get wrong and falsely state. You maintain a lie.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You aren't fully trusting in Jesus for your salvation, if you're also trusting in your works in addition to your faith.

---

Absolutely correct (that is, someone who trusts in works and faith for salvation, not saying that I do this).

Quote:

---

Good fruits are what true believers wil produce if given the time and opportunity, but it is not what saves them.

---

Man walks the aisle, prays the sinners prayer, and goes on to live a secular life. Not an overtly evil one, just a secular one. Doesn't pray, doesn't fast, doesn't go to church or goes occasionally at best. He says he is Christian, but in fact his practiced religion is moralistic, therapeutic, deism.

Is such a person saved because he walked the aisle, prayed a prayer, and believes he is saved? He sincerely believes he is saved because a preacher told him Romans 10:9 once.

---

Ummmmm you do Realize that even the act of saying "I believe" is a work right? How do you know you're believing enough? You have no way to measure and no way to know how God measures. So even then you still have to trust in God's grace and then show him through the actions of your faith, not just mumbling a couple of words and you good.

You believe in the 10 commandments no? How can you follow those commands without doing works? It's impossible. You can't. Completely neuters the believe of I just say I believe". Why? Cuz you gotta do that works that are explicitly written. I jotted down several of them earlier in the thread to try to help out.

You can't honor your father and mother without an action. Impossible. And yet you're saying proudly "all I have to do is have faith and believe!"

Even you would disagree with yourself. It's very simple. But pride gets in the way.

So go ahead and have faith alone, don't honor your father and mother or any of the other commandments and see how confidently you think that gets you where you think it does.

Don't over complicate it but know many are called and few are chosen, the path is wide and very very few follow the narrow. It's hard. It's not as simple as just "sprinkle" and I believe.

---

Honestly, you continuing to maintain that works are necessary is borderline heretical. I am not sure I would even call you saved at this point.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

Indeed, he seems to be confusing a grace-based faith with Gnosticism.

Fre3dombear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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 he punished for leading people to believe all you need is "faith alone" and high of course appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just a very weird pretzel you get yourself into.

---

Big section of what you wrote above is literally word salad and, no, my last comment does not say "you gots to do stuff."

Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

What you don't seem to understand about what I am saying is that the nature of the believer's relationship with God matters and the motives for our good works matters to that relationship. We work to do good things and we work to avoid sin because of our relationship with God as adopted sons and His unfailing love for us, not in the hope that we might do enough to "earn salvation." And believers certainly don't walk around looking for ways to lessen our own punishment after death after Christ already took all of our sins upon himself. What an insult to the Son's sacrifice and the Father's grace that would be.

---

"Again, I have found no pastor who ever said, "do what ever you feel like doing because all you have to do is believe."

EXACTLY!!! However, youve beenn quite clear that no pastor says "no go and live a Godly life (works) because why would they when all you have to do is believe? In fact you'd say it's more likey they'd say "just believe. Faith alone. Osas"

---

Your mistake here is believing that the true convert will go on living a life of sin. Scripture says it is impossible for the Christian to do so.

Unfortunately, you've twisted that into a works-based requirement for salvation. It is not.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

in favor of a lifetime of anxiety from never being sure if you're saved despite your faith.

---

I think I have identified the problem here.

I do not live under a lifetime of anxiety knowing that my race is not complete yet, that it began with my reconciliation with God through Chirst's death and ends at the finish line of salvation. The reason I have no anxiety is that all such judgements are in Christ's hands. The declaration we all hope to hear - "well done good and faithful servant" - is wholly in his domain and authority to make...and I am good with that. He is a far more perfect judge than I, even to those he says "Depart from me, I never knew you."

On the other hand, you feel anxiety in such a scenario and thus subscribe to a theology that takes this authority out of His hands and puts it in yours.

---

So, your ok with condemnation and an eternity in Hell after death because Christ felt your works simply didn't measure up as long as Christ is making that judgment?

And that makes you feel good? Wow. That is indeed a remarkably theology.

Mothra said:

---

So, your ok with condemnation and an eternity in Hell after death because Christ felt your works simply didn't measure up as long as Christ is making that judgment?

And that makes you feel good? Wow. That is indeed a remarkably theology.

---

Christianity has nothing to do with what makes us feel good. It has to do with a series of objective events that happened in history that opened the door for men to be saved. Like Job, every one of us should be able to say "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord."

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The story of the prodigal son does not end with his reconciliation with his father, and you are misunderstanding the point of the story. Read all of it and read it in context, too.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

in favor of a lifetime of anxiety from never being sure if you're saved despite your faith.

---

I think I have identified the problem here.

I do not live under a lifetime of anxiety knowing that my race is not complete yet, that it began with my reconciliation with God through Chirst's death and ends at the finish line of salvation. The reason I have no anxiety is that all such judgements are in Christ's hands. The declaration we all hope to hear - "well done good and faithful servant" - is wholly in his domain and authority to make...and I am good with that. He is a far more perfect judge than I, even to those he says "Depart from me, I never knew you."

On the other hand, you feel anxiety in such a scenario and thus subscribe to a theology that takes this authority out of His hands and puts it in yours.

---

The problem has nothing to do with anxiety. You keep skirting the real issue here - Scripture directly tells us that we can have assurance of our salvation, yet you continue refusing to accept it. This isn't faith.

And if the idea that you can still go to Hell, eternally separated from God, despite your faith because you can die at any moment with your "process" still incomplete - if that doesn't give you anxiety, then you truly don't understand what's at stake here.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

So, your ok with condemnation and an eternity in Hell after death because Christ felt your works simply didn't measure up as long as Christ is making that judgment?

And that makes you feel good? Wow. That is indeed a remarkably theology.

---

Christianity has nothing to do with what makes us feel good. It has to do with a series of objective events that happened in history that opened the door for men to be saved. Like Job, every one of us should be able to say "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord."

---

So, if the Lord condemns you to Hell because you have not done enough, you're ok with that?

That's an interesting perspective. Anti-biblical and absurd, but interesting.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

---

Beat me to it. Generally speaking, it isn't a good idea to extrapolate salvation theology from parables. Especially when your interpretation goes against direct statements and direct examples from Scripture.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

---

We go with the version Jesus told that is recorded in scripture. The story begins with the prodigal's fall snd departure, and ends with his reconcilation to his father.

We know nothing about what the rest of his life looked like.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

---

We go with the version Jesus told that is recorded in scripture. The story begins with the prodigal's fall snd departure, and ends with his reconcilation to his father.

We know nothing about what the rest of his life looked like.

---

You might want to consider the fact that we all have easy access to the scripture if we didn't already know the details of the parable. The parable does not end with the younger son's reconciliation with the father.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

---

We go with the version Jesus told that is recorded in scripture. The story begins with the prodigal's fall snd departure, and ends with his reconcilation to his father.

We know nothing about what the rest of his life looked like.

---

Right, we don't know the rest of his life, so that's why you can't use this parable to support the belief that works are needed to maintain one's reconciled state. The saved Christian is analogous to the prodigal son at the end of the story. You incorrectly made the Christian to be the prodigal son at the beginning.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The irony of your example is that all the prodigal son did was repent and accept his father's grace. There is no mention of any works performed by the prodigal son. Christ did not say he went on to do great things. And yet his repentance and his father's grace saved him.

Interesting...

---

The story of the prodigal son ends with his reconciliation with his father, the equivalent of the start of the Christian's lifelong race. You are misunderstanding the point of the story.

...and a quote isn't a quote if you insert your words into the OP. It is bearing false witness.

---

The prodigal son ends with the Father telling the prodigal son's brother, your brother was lost but now he's found. Speaking of reading things into scripture, it's interesting the parable didn't go on to say, now this was just the start of the prodigal son's journey and he lived the rest of his life life full of good works so that he could truly be found.

But I guess we can go with your version.

---

We go with the version Jesus told that is recorded in scripture. The story begins with the prodigal's fall snd departure, and ends with his reconcilation to his father.

We know nothing about what the rest of his life looked like.

---

I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.

The problem is, you keep reading things into scripture that are not there - i.e. the prodigal son then had to live a life of good works so as not to lose his salvation.

Not sure why you keep missing this.