So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
28,584 Views |
780 Replies |
Last: 3 hrs ago by Fre3dombear
Yes, at least in his heart. If that were the parable, it would have been a completely different parable to convey a completely different truth. Jesus might have said that the father told the returning son "Depart from me, I never knew you" in that parable. But Jesus already gave us that truth not in a parable, but directly. He also gave us the same truth in 1 John: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."Sam Lowry said:So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
Yup.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, at least in his heart. If that were the parable, it would have been a completely different parable to convey a completely different truth. Jesus might have said that the father told the returning son "Depart from me, I never knew you" in that parable. But Jesus already gave us that truth not in a parable, but directly. He also gave us the same truth in 1 John: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."Sam Lowry said:So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
See Busy's post.
Sam Lowry said:So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
As the Spartans like to say, "if."
The return of the younger son is not the point of the parable.
It didn't really answer my question. The parable isn't about the son returning home "in his heart," whatever that means. It's about the son actually returning to fellowship with his father.Mothra said:
See Busy's post.
Perish the thought of imitating the Spartans' pride with respect to our salvation. That's the real danger I see in OSAS.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
As the Spartans like to say, "if."
The return of the younger son is not the point of the parable.
The parable also doesn't have the son denouncing the father and leaving again. You dealt a hypothetical by constructing a new parable. In your new parable, the message would have been completely different, and the point Jesus might have made with your new parable is that those who "return" outwardly but never really do inwardly, he will reject.Sam Lowry said:It didn't really answer my question. The parable isn't about the son returning home "in his heart," whatever that means. It's about the son actually returning to fellowship with his father.Mothra said:
See Busy's post.
Sam Lowry said:Perish the thought of imitating the Spartans' pride with respect to our salvation. That's the real danger I see in OSAS.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:So if he renounced his father and left home a second time, would we have to conclude that he never really came back in the first place?Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
As the Spartans like to say, "if."
The return of the younger son is not the point of the parable.
I am talking about the meaning of the parables in Luke 15. They are not about what it takes to be "saved." The point of the "if" quote is that the scenario described is something that doesn't happen in these parables.
Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
Believe as you wish. I'm sure you perform works daily. You even performed works to accept God's graces. even your belief of faith alone is of course a work contradicting yourself.
Also, as we've pointed out as nauseum faith alone only appears one place and also…contradicts the whole Protestant belief on this topic. So that's if no help to your cause.
If you study what was written in Greek that was translated into the word "faith" you'll find quite a bit About works / actions required as a demonstration of what we call faith. Rather dangerous watering down of what God expects but every argument youve made continues to take a very simplistic view that sadly leads to a bad place most likely in arguing to people that less is required of them by God.
Many Protestant converts to Catholicism have had this epiphany. The video I posted articulated it very succinctly and oddly enough used several of the verses I've provided multiple times.
Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:D. C. Bear said:Fre3dombear said:D. C. Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
Unfortunately, you've twisted that into a works-based requirement for salvation. It is not.
Because of Course their works God requires of us stated in the 20 verses ai provided make clear what is required. Not a "sprinkle" as you say and an inward prayer of "God I believe"
To suggest somos undoubtedly anathema unfortunately. However there is still time. Watch the video. Highly recommended. Former Protestant too.
You appear to be on ankther planet. You believe a true convert doesn't go in living a life of sin? That's quite high and mighty. Convert and then the sinning stops? Impressive. Guess I've never met those people.
The narrow path is not full of people. But the wide path is full of people and may be full of people that believe a true convert doesn't sin in their life.
Mothra said: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.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.
Thankfully you won't be judging me. I'd much love however the layup that your faith apparently has incorrectly taught you or youve clearly misunderstood
Those fool apostles being murdered in torturous ways when they were already saved because they "sprinkled" and said they believed. . They even told us to do things you say we didn't have to do. I wish we could blindly ignore their inspired instructions.
Mothra said:FIFY. Hard to call that anything other than a works-based faith.Realitybites said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
When are you just going to accept what Scripture tells you?
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...
This is the error of sola scriptura. It even states in the Bible the works etc of Jesus would fill a world full of books which is why one cannot rely on just the 30,000 verses alone as it explicitly states traditions etc as well. By your own account your faith teaches you you really only need 1 or 2 verses and all the others are superfluous and can be ignored.
We could even apply many of the 20 verses I've referenced to the prodigal father of several actions he did with the Prodigal Son.
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?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.
And that makes you feel good? Wow. That is indeed a remarkably theology.
Where in the Bible does it suggest we do these things to feel good? This is a key mistake you're making in thinking that's somehow a criteria.
Just to name a few:
- Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
- Matthew 10:38: "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
- Matthew 16:24: "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.'"
- Luke 14:27: "And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."
- John 16:33: "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
In fact Jesus is very clear that following him may be difficult, result in persecution; etc. even Paul talks of having fought the fight, finishing the race.
None of those things mentioned suggestions anything associated with comfort here in this temporal world. "Take up your cross!" Yawn, easy, I believe
The pattern I'm seeing is of one where you can phone it in. "Sprinkle" and say some words you believe in your heart and you good.
The reward which we would certainly largely agree on for such minimal effort is quite appalling. Can't imagine generations of apostles and church fathers could possibly concur with that even through some bizarre twisting of words that from English to Greek quite clearly state something to the contrary. They wrote abundantly on what is required when all they needed was John 3:16. I am thankful I'm not in the position of arguing for such a minimal requirement of me from God.
Does sound very appealing though. Country club like here on earth as we wait to just float on up to Heaven having been OSAS at some event when we were 8 years old.
That's quite the assertion youve bought into it appears.
Mothra said:So, if the Lord condemns you to Hell because you have not done enough, you're ok with that?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."
That's an interesting perspective. Anti-biblical and absurd, but interesting.
If Jesus tells you to pick up your cross and follow me (also a work) and that things will be hard here for you and all you've done is "sprinkle" and say I believe 50 years ago or whatever, do you think you've done as he has asked?
I mean the number of verses that contradict your position are so abundant its almost offensive to what Jesus and the apostles and the church fathers that codified the traditions and interpretations from those that heard the word directly and were taken up with the Holy Spirit and wrote inspired text to guide us that it's as if the devil is trying to trick you and whole groups of people to ignore the vast majority of the New Testament, thereby leading the flock astray.
. It really should be thought through. The danger of what is at stake should give you anxiety.
Humans will have different interpretations of course. I choose the oldest, Most enduring and supported in tradition and voluminous writings Ablut the texts of the Bible. If I'm wrong and all I needed was a "sprinkle" and a statement of faith well I did all this extra running of the race for nought, just like the apostles
I can't imagine risking being on the other side of that argument though. The risks are incalculable.
Pick up your cross! Confess with your tongue! Do what is required beyond just saying "I believe". It's written literally everywhere. It is hard. It is a race. It is carrying a cross! Even Jesus said so.
Mothra said:I wish you would go with the version recorded in scripture - the prodigal son repented, received forgiveness, and was saved at that point.Realitybites said:Mothra said: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.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.
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.
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.
Odd. Nothing is mentioned About his salvation in that story. Since he was of age you'd believe certainly that he'd been OSAS before he lived with the pigs. So even then in your view he was still saved and required no reconciliation. You also know nothing of his life beyond the story. But you contradict yourself in saying that his return to his father is ostensibly what reconciled him for his salvation as he was in all likelihood already OSAS so what was the point?
It's a perfect contradiction of your own belief even from your own words. You're tied up in a pretzel with no clue where the beginning and end is.
A more logically and theologically (in your view) consistent view would have been if you said, given his age we'd assume he was already OSAS and while it was great he came back and reconciled with his temporal father, his salvation, even had he died living with the pigs and never reconciled with his father, was and still is impossibly removed.
But that's not what you said. You went down the reconciliation path as an allegory to our Christian lives.
Here's a guy with a perspective
Can't imagine the disservice done by Martin Luther and how many souls since then that he confused and led astray
500 years. About as long as the (demonic lol) Out Lady of Guadalupe has survived unblemished after leading the conversion of an entire unChristian continent
Can't imagine the disservice done by Martin Luther and how many souls since then that he confused and led astray
500 years. About as long as the (demonic lol) Out Lady of Guadalupe has survived unblemished after leading the conversion of an entire unChristian continent
Do you think change begins with outward actions or an inward transformation?Sam Lowry said:It didn't really answer my question. The parable isn't about the son returning home "in his heart," whatever that means. It's about the son actually returning to fellowship with his father.Mothra said:
See Busy's post.
This mindset definitely speaks to your work-based faith.
The verses you quoted indeed talked about works. That is not in dispute, so please try to stay on point and not get sidetracked.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
Believe as you wish. I'm sure you perform works daily. You even performed works to accept God's graces. even your belief of faith alone is of course a work contradicting yourself.
Also, as we've pointed out as nauseum faith alone only appears one place and also…contradicts the whole Protestant belief on this topic. So that's if no help to your cause.
If you study what was written in Greek that was translated into the word "faith" you'll find quite a bit About works / actions required as a demonstration of what we call faith. Rather dangerous watering down of what God expects but every argument youve made continues to take a very simplistic view that sadly leads to a bad place most likely in arguing to people that less is required of them by God.
Many Protestant converts to Catholicism have had this epiphany. The video I posted articulated it very succinctly and oddly enough used several of the verses I've provided multiple times.
The problem, at least for your unbiblical position, is none of the verses said works are a requirement for salvation. Not a single one.
Your position is un-Christian.
1 John 3:9Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:D. C. Bear said:Fre3dombear said:D. C. Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
Unfortunately, you've twisted that into a works-based requirement for salvation. It is not.
Because of Course their works God requires of us stated in the 20 verses ai provided make clear what is required. Not a "sprinkle" as you say and an inward prayer of "God I believe"
To suggest somos undoubtedly anathema unfortunately. However there is still time. Watch the video. Highly recommended. Former Protestant too.
You appear to be on ankther planet. You believe a true convert doesn't go in living a life of sin? That's quite high and mighty. Convert and then the sinning stops? Impressive. Guess I've never met those people.
The narrow path is not full of people. But the wide path is full of people and may be full of people that believe a true convert doesn't sin in their life.
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God 's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Do you understand what this means? It is not saying that the convert no longer sins. That is indeed impossible. What it says is we don't dive head first into it. We don't continue living a life of sin. We cannot when the Holy Spirit resides in us.
Have no idea why you keep using the word sprinkled. I certainly never said sprinkling is required.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.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.
Thankfully you won't be judging me. I'd much love however the layup that your faith apparently has incorrectly taught you or youve clearly misunderstood
Those fool apostles being murdered in torturous ways when they were already saved because they "sprinkled" and said they believed. . They even told us to do things you say we didn't have to do. I wish we could blindly ignore their inspired instructions.
You don't seem to be reading what I wrote.
This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
I have to say, you really are a terrible reader. Nowhere did I say or suggest- that we do things to feel good (although I would argue that doing the works the Holy Spirit laid out for us should make us feel good).Fre3dombear 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?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.
And that makes you feel good? Wow. That is indeed a remarkably theology.
Where in the Bible does it suggest we do these things to feel good? This is a key mistake you're making in thinking that's somehow a criteria.
Just to name a few:
- Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
- Matthew 10:38: "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
- Matthew 16:24: "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.'"
- Luke 14:27: "And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."
- John 16:33: "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
In fact Jesus is very clear that following him may be difficult, result in persecution; etc. even Paul talks of having fought the fight, finishing the race.
None of those things mentioned suggestions anything associated with comfort here in this temporal world. "Take up your cross!" Yawn, easy, I believe
The pattern I'm seeing is of one where you can phone it in. "Sprinkle" and say some words you believe in your heart and you good.
The reward which we would certainly largely agree on for such minimal effort is quite appalling. Can't imagine generations of apostles and church fathers could possibly concur with that even through some bizarre twisting of words that from English to Greek quite clearly state something to the contrary. They wrote abundantly on what is required when all they needed was John 3:16. I am thankful I'm not in the position of arguing for such a minimal requirement of me from God.
Does sound very appealing though. Country club like here on earth as we wait to just float on up to Heaven having been OSAS at some event when we were 8 years old.
That's quite the assertion youve bought into it appears.
You really do go on some inane tangents.
You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not sure if it's a comprehension issue, or if you are being purposely obtuse. You don't seem stupid, so I think it might be the latter.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:So, if the Lord condemns you to Hell because you have not done enough, you're ok with that?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."
That's an interesting perspective. Anti-biblical and absurd, but interesting.
If Jesus tells you to pick up your cross and follow me (also a work) and that things will be hard here for you and all you've done is "sprinkle" and say I believe 50 years ago or whatever, do you think you've done as he has asked?
I mean the number of verses that contradict your position are so abundant its almost offensive to what Jesus and the apostles and the church fathers that codified the traditions and interpretations from those that heard the word directly and were taken up with the Holy Spirit and wrote inspired text to guide us that it's as if the devil is trying to trick you and whole groups of people to ignore the vast majority of the New Testament, thereby leading the flock astray.
. It really should be thought through. The danger of what is at stake should give you anxiety.
Humans will have different interpretations of course. I choose the oldest, Most enduring and supported in tradition and voluminous writings Ablut the texts of the Bible. If I'm wrong and all I needed was a "sprinkle" and a statement of faith well I did all this extra running of the race for nought, just like the apostles
I can't imagine risking being on the other side of that argument though. The risks are incalculable.
Pick up your cross! Confess with your tongue! Do what is required beyond just saying "I believe". It's written literally everywhere. It is hard. It is a race. It is carrying a cross! Even Jesus said so.
I haven't said or suggested that works don't matter. Faith without works is dead. What I said, and what the bible clearly communicates, can be summed up on Ephesians 2:8-9. In short, works do not save us. They play no part in our salvation. This cannot be communicated more clearly.
Anyone that says works are required for salvation is preaching a false gospel.
Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
It smacks of ADHD or even bipolar disorder, where "flight of ideas" is a prevalent feature during manic episodes. Also prevalent are irritability and rash behavior, such as when he got angry at me and then blocked me for calling him out.Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Ahahhahahaha. Textbook response(s) if someone that has lost the argument. Total deflections. Moving the goal post at every turn. Completely ignoring the points and not answering the questions. Still never once answered my original questions. Hopefully the teaching will get thru the stubbornness.
Now your position is "I never said works don't matter" and ""well we don't live a life of sin" lol as if you could ever measure something so subjective. You realize that a single sin is too many and represents a life of sin? In fact you and we were born with it.
Again the Protestants arguing that it's all so simple, just "sprinkle" which you did indeed say and "believe" which of course is invalidated by many verses
Did you watch the video of your former Protestant compadre? It articulates it very clearly.
You could tell him "you don't have to sprinkle" (wow a blasphemy in and of itself ti mock Jesus' baptism that way so smugly) and just believe and you'd get the full on eye roll and an onslaught of verses to the contrary in plain English, Greek or Hebrew
You still have never proven a logical reason the commands are not required. And ofmcourse even the 10 commandments are a great example yet you believe you're not required to do them
So many led astray.
Never seen a poster in this or any board so Often wrong but never in doubt….until the end
Watch the video. Learn. Be enlightened. Before it's too late.
Still think he's a smart guy? Yikes.Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.Quote:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Quote:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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?Quote:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.Quote:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Ahahhahahaha. Textbook response(s) if someone that has lost the argument. Total deflections. Moving the goal post at every turn. Completely ignoring the points and not answering the questions. Still never once answered my original questions. Hopefully the teaching will get thru the stubbornness.
Now your position is "I never said works don't matter" and ""well we don't live a life of sin" lol as if you could ever measure something so subjective. You realize that a single sin is too many and represents a life of sin? In fact you and we were born with it.
Again the Protestants arguing that it's all so simple, just "sprinkle" which you did indeed say and "believe" which of course is invalidated by many verses
Did you watch the video of your former Protestant compadre? It articulates it very clearly.
You could tell him "you don't have to sprinkle" (wow a blasphemy in and of itself ti mock Jesus' baptism that way so smugly) and just believe and you'd get the full on eye roll and an onslaught of verses to the contrary in plain English, Greek or Hebrew
You still have never proven a logical reason the commands are not required. And ofmcourse even the 10 commandments are a great example yet you believe you're not required to do them
So many led astray.
Never seen a poster in this or any board so Often wrong but never in doubt….until the end
Watch the video. Learn. Be enlightened. Before it's too late.
Please quote the post where I said or suggested works don't matter. Let me help you: it doesn't exist. But good luck!
Again, for the like the tenth time, what I said is works don't save us. I've consistently said works are important and an outcropping of our faith. But they don't save us. The Bible is very consistent on this point. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping that point.
I also never said that one must be sprinkled. I was raised Baptist. I believe in dunking not sprinkling. But again, show me where I said one must be sprinkled. Again, good luck!
I watched your video. Not sure what point you thought you were making by it. There is so much error in this guys position.
You seem like a nice guy but I think you're either dealing with an issue with your mental faculties or so brainwashed you aren't capable of a logical and adult discussion.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Still think he's a smart guy? Yikes.Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.Quote:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Quote:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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?Quote:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.Quote:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
I'm not sure what his issue is but something is wrong.
Mothra said:Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Ahahhahahaha. Textbook response(s) if someone that has lost the argument. Total deflections. Moving the goal post at every turn. Completely ignoring the points and not answering the questions. Still never once answered my original questions. Hopefully the teaching will get thru the stubbornness.
Now your position is "I never said works don't matter" and ""well we don't live a life of sin" lol as if you could ever measure something so subjective. You realize that a single sin is too many and represents a life of sin? In fact you and we were born with it.
Again the Protestants arguing that it's all so simple, just "sprinkle" which you did indeed say and "believe" which of course is invalidated by many verses
Did you watch the video of your former Protestant compadre? It articulates it very clearly.
You could tell him "you don't have to sprinkle" (wow a blasphemy in and of itself ti mock Jesus' baptism that way so smugly) and just believe and you'd get the full on eye roll and an onslaught of verses to the contrary in plain English, Greek or Hebrew
You still have never proven a logical reason the commands are not required. And ofmcourse even the 10 commandments are a great example yet you believe you're not required to do them
So many led astray.
Never seen a poster in this or any board so Often wrong but never in doubt….until the end
Watch the video. Learn. Be enlightened. Before it's too late.
Please quote the post where I said or suggested works don't matter. Let me help you: it doesn't exist. But good luck!
Again, for the like the tenth time, what I said is works don't save us. I've consistently said works are important and an outcropping of our faith. But they don't save us. The Bible is very consistent on this point. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping that point.
I also never said that one must be sprinkled. I was raised Baptist. I believe in dunking not sprinkling. But again, show me where I said one must be sprinkled. Again, good luck!
I watched your video. Not sure what point you thought you were making by it. There is so much error in this guys position.
You seem like a nice guy but I think you're either dealing with an issue with your mental faculties or so brainwashed you aren't capable of a logical and adult discussion.
You said "sprinkled". So that's why I said you said "sprinkled". I've been discussing Catholic vs non catholic beliefs. Catholics don't believe in being "sprinkled" so no clue why you said that given your last post in the topic. You're confused.
Whenever anyone starts going to the "mental faculties" stuff they've really completely lost the argument. Lol
I've never said works save us Christians and if at this point you think that's a Catholic position I'll really need to dumb it down from here, but lack of works can condemn us. It's stated throughout the Bible You have disagreed with this. I've posted dozens of verses that dispute your belief, that as best I can tell, came about about the time Mary was emblazoned in the tilma (by the devil you say? Weird)
You claim sola scriptura. Bible disputes that explicitly.
You claim a twisted version of faith alone. Bible disputes that explicitly.
You ignore entire chapters and books of the Bible. I've spoon fed them to you.
Most of your posts on this board seem fairly logical and I could certainly understand if being raised Baptist as you say (and who was your faith founded by again? Another question youve refused to answer for obvious reasons and further weakening your position with the dodge) it would be very difficult to open one's eyes to the Truth.
It would be almost akin maybe to a Jew becoming a Christian as there's just so much flawed and not rooted in scripture with what youve proposed, or any text prior to maybe the 1500s for that matter
The entirety of the book of James disputes your whole position of course.
What you're struggling with is it can be true that one is not saved by X but not doing X can condemn him.
It's really simple. But probably for familial reasons many have eyes and do not see. Seems you fall in that category given your obtuse points and lack of logical defense of your position and so many of my questions going unanswered.
The whole Catholic faith is founded on God's saving grace yet unlike Baptist's / Protestants, from all my study, it does not stop there. So much more is required. Martin Luther wanted a wife and led you astray.
You can't point to any church father supporting your position. You essentially then are left with Martin Luther and the founder of your faith that you refuse to name.
It's a completely illogical position and certainly in your heart you don't even believe it and live out the works required at a minimum as a hedge or you are accepting more risk of your soul than many of your posts make you appear to be. I'm sure you're a very nice guy or gal though.
Matthew 7:13-14 even disputes your claim
Is your workless (or if you do do them, as God requires, you do them selfishly for yourself and temporal rewards?) on the narrow or wide path?
Of course, this isn't my opinion but the opinion of the learned scholars and those that walked with Christ
For those who say that works are necessary for salvation (or that non-works will make one lose their salvation), then the obvious and necessary question is this: however you want to quantify or qualify "works", how much of it is needed to gain/not lose salvation? Where is the cutoff point? Considering all the time and effort God and Jesus spent on their effort to save mankind, wouldn't they have made it clearly known where that line is? Wouldn't it behoove them to tell us?
If you're saying that there isn't an exact number, and that it's different for different people, then that brings up two problems: first, how is that just, especially if the person didn't know where the exact line for them was? Secondly, it would mean that no one can ever know whether they've done enough, which means no one can ever have assurance of salvation. But the Bible clearly says that we can. So how is this position tenable?
Do you really think it makes sense that Jesus will allow a believer into Heaven for doing x amount of works, but if they had just done one less work, he would have sent that believer to Hell? Isn't that saying that our works is what ultimate determines our salvation? Wouldn't that just be legalism all over again? So - Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly so we wouldn't have to.... only so he could bind us to a new form of Law/legalism, upon which if we fail, we go to Hell forever? How exactly would this be "Good News"?
If you're saying that there isn't an exact number, and that it's different for different people, then that brings up two problems: first, how is that just, especially if the person didn't know where the exact line for them was? Secondly, it would mean that no one can ever know whether they've done enough, which means no one can ever have assurance of salvation. But the Bible clearly says that we can. So how is this position tenable?
Do you really think it makes sense that Jesus will allow a believer into Heaven for doing x amount of works, but if they had just done one less work, he would have sent that believer to Hell? Isn't that saying that our works is what ultimate determines our salvation? Wouldn't that just be legalism all over again? So - Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly so we wouldn't have to.... only so he could bind us to a new form of Law/legalism, upon which if we fail, we go to Hell forever? How exactly would this be "Good News"?
Rick Warren was the #1 most influential Evangelical Christian in America 25 years ago.
— Joshua Lisec, Ghostwriter (@JoshuaLisec) February 16, 2025
The politics of the Bush Administration and later Conservatives under Obama and then Trump 45 are spiritually downstream from Warren. https://t.co/8DBK7SZU6X
Redbrickbear said:Rick Warren was the #1 most influential Evangelical Christian in America 25 years ago.
— Joshua Lisec, Ghostwriter (@JoshuaLisec) February 16, 2025
The politics of the Bush Administration and later Conservatives under Obama and then Trump 45 are spiritually downstream from Warren. https://t.co/8DBK7SZU6X
I can't speak for what Warren actually meant, but I kind of took that to be we should not rely on political parties because they are both crooks and we should instead look to Jesus, not that Jesus splits the difference between the left and right. If he meant Jesus is a political moderate I can't agree with him since I think Jesus is a monarchist, and guess who the king is?
Double post. See my next post.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:Fre3dombear said:Mothra said:Holy cow, this is the truth. He goes on more inane, irrelevant tangents than any poster on this board. Never seen a poster mischaracterize someone's position as much as he does. He seems like a smart guy. Maybe it is a dyslexia issue.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This post of yours demonstrates your problem. He didn't say those verses didn't contain a "work". He clearly said that they do, but that none of them say that works are necessary for salvation. You know, the topic of the debate??Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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?Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said:Mothra said: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.Fre3dombear said: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".Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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!Sam Lowry said:
I'll stick with what the Bible says and what Christians have historically believed.
In all seriousness, Christians haven't historically believed what you are espousing. The Catholic Church has, but not Christians in general.
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.
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)
.
.
.
.
?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Auncontraire. Every single one contained a work. Written in the very verse. If you can't read it and understand you are being duped.
I don't know if it's because you have a thinking problem or you're just dishonest, but your arguments are often unfocused and sloppy like this. It's the same problem I had with you in another thread. I called you out on it, and that's why you blocked me.
Ahahhahahaha. Textbook response(s) if someone that has lost the argument. Total deflections. Moving the goal post at every turn. Completely ignoring the points and not answering the questions. Still never once answered my original questions. Hopefully the teaching will get thru the stubbornness.
Now your position is "I never said works don't matter" and ""well we don't live a life of sin" lol as if you could ever measure something so subjective. You realize that a single sin is too many and represents a life of sin? In fact you and we were born with it.
Again the Protestants arguing that it's all so simple, just "sprinkle" which you did indeed say and "believe" which of course is invalidated by many verses
Did you watch the video of your former Protestant compadre? It articulates it very clearly.
You could tell him "you don't have to sprinkle" (wow a blasphemy in and of itself ti mock Jesus' baptism that way so smugly) and just believe and you'd get the full on eye roll and an onslaught of verses to the contrary in plain English, Greek or Hebrew
You still have never proven a logical reason the commands are not required. And ofmcourse even the 10 commandments are a great example yet you believe you're not required to do them
So many led astray.
Never seen a poster in this or any board so Often wrong but never in doubt….until the end
Watch the video. Learn. Be enlightened. Before it's too late.
Please quote the post where I said or suggested works don't matter. Let me help you: it doesn't exist. But good luck!
Again, for the like the tenth time, what I said is works don't save us. I've consistently said works are important and an outcropping of our faith. But they don't save us. The Bible is very consistent on this point. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping that point.
I also never said that one must be sprinkled. I was raised Baptist. I believe in dunking not sprinkling. But again, show me where I said one must be sprinkled. Again, good luck!
I watched your video. Not sure what point you thought you were making by it. There is so much error in this guys position.
You seem like a nice guy but I think you're either dealing with an issue with your mental faculties or so brainwashed you aren't capable of a logical and adult discussion.
You said "sprinkled". So that's why I said you said "sprinkled". I've been discussing Catholic vs non catholic beliefs. Catholics don't believe in being "sprinkled" so no clue why you said that given your last post in the topic. You're confused.
Whenever anyone starts going to the "mental faculties" stuff they've really completely lost the argument. Lol
I've never said works save us Christians and if at this point you think that's a Catholic position I'll really need to dumb it down from here, but lack of works can condemn us. It's stated throughout the Bible You have disagreed with this. I've posted dozens of verses that dispute your belief, that as best I can tell, came about about the time Mary was emblazoned in the tilma (by the devil you say? Weird)
You claim sola scriptura. Bible disputes that explicitly.
You claim a twisted version of faith alone. Bible disputes that explicitly.
You ignore entire chapters and books of the Bible. I've spoon fed them to you.
Most of your posts on this board seem fairly logical and I could certainly understand if being raised Baptist as you say (and who was your faith founded by again? Another question youve refused to answer for obvious reasons and further weakening your position with the dodge) it would be very difficult to open one's eyes to the Truth.
It would be almost akin maybe to a Jew becoming a Christian as there's just so much flawed and not rooted in scripture with what youve proposed, or any text prior to maybe the 1500s for that matter
The entirety of the book of James disputes your whole position of course.
What you're struggling with is it can be true that one is not saved by X but not doing X can condemn him.
It's really simple. But probably for familial reasons many have eyes and do not see. Seems you fall in that category given your obtuse points and lack of logical defense of your position and so many of my questions going unanswered.
The whole Catholic faith is founded on God's saving grace yet unlike Baptist's / Protestants, from all my study, it does not stop there. So much more is required. Martin Luther wanted a wife and led you astray.
You can't point to any church father supporting your position. You essentially then are left with Martin Luther and the founder of your faith that you refuse to name.
It's a completely illogical position and certainly in your heart you don't even believe it and live out the works required at a minimum as a hedge or you are accepting more risk of your soul than many of your posts make you appear to be. I'm sure you're a very nice guy or gal though.
Matthew 7:13-14 even disputes your claim
Is your workless (or if you do do them, as God requires, you do them selfishly for yourself and temporal rewards?) on the narrow or wide path?
Of course, this isn't my opinion but the opinion of the learned scholars and those that walked with Christ