Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

I hear you. I think the question is, did they truly believe? I think our answer to this question is likely where we diverge. I would say no, because salvation cannot be lost. I believe scripture is VERY clear on this point. Once we have the Holy Spirit, he does not depart.

I think those who "fall away" from the faith were never saved to begin with. It may have looked like they were, but it didn't take. A true conversion cannot be reversed.

---

Ah, but the Holy Spirit doesn't make us perfectly sinless. That means we can choose to ignore Him or even run from Him…and of course, we all do. We have both ignored the Lord and sinned after finding Him.

You're framing it as though the danger can't be taken to the extreme, but Scripture clearly allows for it: "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6). He deliberately chose the word "remain." That shows some have truly arrived in the vine, yet can still fail to continue.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

Scripture actually does call it a guarantee, which happens right when you truly believe - "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

Scripture actually does call it a guarantee, which happens right when you truly believe - "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

---

and John 15:6 suggests the opposite of your interpretation.

Whatever the theological differences may be, can we agree that the Christian life calls us to constant vigilance and love? To never turn our back on Christ, to endure trials for His sake, to repent continually, to suffer when carrying our cross, and to live in obedience and devotion.

This is how we participate in God's grace and grow in union with Him, day by day.

Would it not be better to live as if salvation and sanctification are synergistic?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

I hear you. I think the question is, did they truly believe? I think our answer to this question is likely where we diverge. I would say no, because salvation cannot be lost. I believe scripture is VERY clear on this point. Once we have the Holy Spirit, he does not depart.

I think those who "fall away" from the faith were never saved to begin with. It may have looked like they were, but it didn't take. A true conversion cannot be reversed.

---

Ah, but the Holy Spirit doesn't make us perfectly sinless. That means we can choose to ignore Him or even run from Him…and of course, we all do. We have both ignored the Lord and sinned after finding Him.

You're framing it as though the danger can't be taken to the extreme, but Scripture clearly allows for it: "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6). He deliberately chose the word "remain." That shows some have truly arrived in the vine, yet can still fail to continue.

---

Not sinless, but there are a number of verses that suggest with the Holy Spirit in us we can no longer engage in unrepentant sin.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

Scripture actually does call it a guarantee, which happens right when you truly believe - "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

---

and John 15:6 suggests the opposite of your interpretation.

Whatever the theological differences may be, can we agree that the Christian life calls us to constant vigilance and love? To never turn our back on Christ, to endure trials for His sake, to repent continually, to suffer when carrying our cross, and to live in obedience and devotion.

This is how we participate in God's grace and grow in union with Him, day by day.

Would it not be better to live as if salvation and sanctification are synergistic?

---

Do you interpret that to mean the Holy Spirit will leave the person who dives into sin (instead of stumbling and repenting)?

These are difficult concepts, and I agree we should be humble in how we approach and think about them. And yes, your call to arms is a good one. Completely agree.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We can't have any confidence in our salvation. Just have to hope we've done enough and don't end up in a fictional, place never mentioned in scripture.

---

I have zero "confidence in my salvation". I have complete confidence in Christ and his judgements. He is the savior, and I bow the knee to him.

Claiming absolute confidence in one's salvation is an easy way to end up with this crowd.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Yep.

Faith without works is dead. True faith is shown forth in obedience to the Lord's commandments. Yet no man is without sin, nor can any man perfectly obey.

The Christian life is not one of assuming our own salvation. No it's a constant state of humility and repentance.

I see myself as garbage and beg the lord to show mercy and to forgive me knowing I don't deserve it whatsoever. We must align ourselves with His will so that His grace can transform us.

Orthodoxy has it right: it's Theosis.

---

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," a phrase from Philippians 2:12, calls believers to actively engage in their spiritual journey with a humble, awe-filled reverence for God, not out of fear of losing salvation, but as a deep respect for His majesty and holiness. It signifies a continuous, diligent effort to live out the salvation already received through Christ, demonstrating faith in daily actions and choices that please God, knowing that it is God Himself who works within us to bring about His good pleasure.

The idea that we cannot have some semblance of salvific security is the opposite of Christ's words in scripture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly examine our walk, and our actions, to ensure there is no stumbling block. But it doesn't mean we have to constantly worry - have I done enough works, or have I repented enough to be saved. That kind of mindset is antithetical to Paul's words that it is by grace alone we have been saved.

If that's not what orthodoxy teaches, then it is most definitely in the wrong.

---

The key difference is how salvation itself is understood.

In Orthodoxy, salvation is not a one-time past event but a present, ongoing process of union with God. They don't measure salvation by "have I done enough?", because works are never a currency we pay for salvation. Instead, they are the natural fruit of God's life within us.

So when salvation is reduced to a one-time declaration without transformation, it is compromised. If someone claims to be saved but bears no fruit of repentance, love, or obedience, that is not true salvation, it is an incomplete and distorted version of it.

This keeps the focus on union with God as the true measure, not tallying works or legalistic security.

"Once saved, always saved" is legalistic security. If you were the devil and your goal was to go after Christians, you would convince them that the work or process they've already gone through is enough. In that they could falsely believe that no matter what actions they take, no matter how sinful, they're good. That's not true unless they're truly exercising repentance, love, and obedience, which what Orthodoxy is about.

---

I agree with a lot of this. But I think scripture is also clear salvation is a one-time event, just like it was for the thief on the cross. I think Orthodoxy confuses salvation with sanctification, which scripture makes clear are two different things.

Your post seems to mistakenly reduce evangelical thought to allowing a sort of hedonistic lifestyle because we have a get out of free jail card. I know my church - a reformed evangelical church - certainly doesn't adhere to such belief.

---

That's not my case. Most Protestant churches don't adhere to that belief thankfully.

The case is that salvation and sanctification are inseparable.
Salvation is not simply a legal declaration, it is union with God's life. We are justified in order to be transformed, and that transformation, holiness, is never optional or automatic.

It's salvation in motion: the gift of grace received and lived out in repentance, obedience, and love.

I have absolute trust in God's mercy, but will never boast in claiming invulnerability. It would be a sin of pride to assume security in salvation alone.

Salvation and sanctification are synergistic.

---

Again, there isn't much disagreement here. I just think the two are different concepts that can in some ways be separated. The thief on the cross is arguably not sanctified. He died right after he was saved. With other believers who live a long life, we can look at the sanctification process, and determine if they are the seed that fell on shallow ground, or the seed that took deep roots into the soil and bore fruit.

---

The thief on the cross was sanctified because of his humility, he begged, "Remember me, Lord.". In that one moment he showed humility, repentance, faith, and love. Is that not the work of sanctification?

For me, salvation means I never have to despair, because God's mercy is greater than all my sins. I have confidence that I can be saved, but I don't presume it, because I know I can fall if I become careless or proud.

Sadly, we see that some people truly believe, then later reject Christ and work to prevent others from accepting Christ. That shows me that salvation is a living relationship, not a one-time guarantee.

I know for a fact that if I assumed security in salvation, I would not fear the Lord.

Phil. 2:12

---

Scripture actually does call it a guarantee, which happens right when you truly believe - "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

---

and John 15:6 suggests the opposite of your interpretation.

Whatever the theological differences may be, can we agree that the Christian life calls us to constant vigilance and love? To never turn our back on Christ, to endure trials for His sake, to repent continually, to suffer when carrying our cross, and to live in obedience and devotion.

This is how we participate in God's grace and grow in union with Him, day by day.

Would it not be better to live as if salvation and sanctification are synergistic?

---

No, John 15:6 is not talking about salvation and then losing it. If so, Jesus would not only be contradicting Ephesians, he'd also be going against his own words earlier in John 6: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." If someone believes and trusts in Jesus, but then loses his belief and thus his salvation, then it would mean Jesus lost something and God's will was thwarted. Also notice that in John 15:6, Jesus had not yet died for sin and the Holy Spirit had not been sent yet. When it was later sent, it became the "seal" and "guarantee" of salvation, as Ephesians 1:13-14 says.

Saying that we "participate" in God's grace would be to suggest that we must DO something to receive God's grace - but God's grace is a free gift (Romans 3) that we don't work for. Saying that salvation and sanctification are "synergistic" would be to suggest that salvation is not finished until sanctification is complete. If that were the case, then no one would be saved. It would also put the focus of one's salvation on our own "goodness" rather than on what Jesus did for us.

Charlie's death and the reactions to it are helping to bring about global revivalism. Honestly, it's been happening for some time but it's become more dramatic and prominent (or reported more) since September 10. And it's beautiful.

Hers is a wonderful article with a bunch of examples:

https://notthebee.com/article/check-out-these-responses-to-charlie-kirks-funeral-from-unbelievers-who-are-clearly-being-drawn-to-christ

Check out the video clips.

I finally got to watch the memorial service for Charlie Kirk. I’m going to tell you why 200,000 people showed up, instead of the 100,000 that was expected, and 100 million people streamed this. Because from this tragedy, people actually went back to watch his talks in entirety.… pic.twitter.com/LUTLnlBCV1

— Deon Joseph (@ofcrdeonjoseph) September 22, 2025

historian said:

---

Charlie's death and the reactions to it are helping to bring about global revivalism. Honestly, it's been happening for some time but it's become more dramatic and prominent (or reported more) since September 10. And it's beautiful.

Hers is a wonderful article with a bunch of examples:

https://notthebee.com/article/check-out-these-responses-to-charlie-kirks-funeral-from-unbelievers-who-are-clearly-being-drawn-to-christ

Check out the video clips.

---

Hope you are correct.

However I expect the legacy media to continue to attack Charlie and his organization continually.

As Charlie is now more of a threat to leftists in death, than he ever was alive.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Charlie's death and the reactions to it are helping to bring about global revivalism. Honestly, it's been happening for some time but it's become more dramatic and prominent (or reported more) since September 10. And it's beautiful.

Hers is a wonderful article with a bunch of examples:

https://notthebee.com/article/check-out-these-responses-to-charlie-kirks-funeral-from-unbelievers-who-are-clearly-being-drawn-to-christ

Check out the video clips.

---

Hope you are correct.

However I expect the legacy media to continue to attack Charlie and his organization continually.

As Charlie is now more of a threat to leftists in death, than he ever was alive.

---

He is a martyr. Look what Charlie has done on this trip to heaven? He continues to amaze

The legacy media will continue to attack but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant as they lose viewers. They also continue to show their try's colors: mean, petty, dishonest, evil.

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

First of all I don't know if Hegseth is actually on any ballot. Certainly none in Texas.

Secondly, if he were on the ballot one could feel comfortable voting for someone who is placing the rule of law over criminal behavior and anarchy.

Are we a nation of laws by, of, & for the people or are we nation in which criminals rule the streets and sane people cower in fear? Wolves or sheep, good vs evil: it's an easy choice.

Only Christ saves:

https://notthebee.com/takes/the-one-line-at-charlie-kirks-memorial-service-that-matters-most

Keith Olbermann Appears to Threaten Scott Jennings: 'You're Next'

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

william said:

---

---

Are those our choices?

---

Those are the historical results. You can choose which one you prefer.

Keith Olbermann Threatens Scott Jennings in an Extreme WayWill the FBI Get Involved? RedState

Baptist church claps and cheers after pastor says the hate-filled and racist Charlie Kirk wasted his life and is likely in hell, where Jesus will say 'I never knew you.'

See the story at https://t.co/iqsCkGAEOa pic.twitter.com/Adzs4kAHrL

— Protestia (@Protestia) September 23, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Baptist church claps and cheers after pastor says the hate-filled and racist Charlie Kirk wasted his life and is likely in hell, where Jesus will say 'I never knew you.'

See the story at https://t.co/iqsCkGAEOa pic.twitter.com/Adzs4kAHrL

— Protestia (@Protestia) September 23, 2025

---

Is this the church where 1947 preaches?

ScottS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Baptist church claps and cheers after pastor says the hate-filled and racist Charlie Kirk wasted his life and is likely in hell, where Jesus will say 'I never knew you.'

See the story at https://t.co/iqsCkGAEOa pic.twitter.com/Adzs4kAHrL

— Protestia (@Protestia) September 23, 2025

---

Is this the church where 1947 preaches?

---

Possibly the church where 1947 cleans the bathroom.

ScottS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Baptist church claps and cheers after pastor says the hate-filled and racist Charlie Kirk wasted his life and is likely in hell, where Jesus will say 'I never knew you.'

See the story at https://t.co/iqsCkGAEOa pic.twitter.com/Adzs4kAHrL

— Protestia (@Protestia) September 23, 2025

---

Is this the church where 1947 preaches?

---

I thought it might be C.Jordan

historian said:

---

First of all I don't know if Hegseth is actually on any ballot. Certainly none in Texas.

Secondly, if he were on the ballot one could feel comfortable voting for someone who is placing the rule of law over criminal behavior and anarchy.

Are we a nation of laws by, of, & for the people or are we nation in which criminals rule the streets and sane people cower in fear? Wolves or sheep, good vs evil: it's an easy choice.

---

Using the military to violate constitutional rights is the opposite of the rule of law.

Irony alert.

Old lady is wearing a MAKA - Make America Kind Again shirt.

The back of her shirt says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Old woman wearing a "be kind" shirt tries to decapitate a Trump effigy pic.twitter.com/lUoSzDzDc5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 22, 2025

Texas leftist Marynka Zarina Marquez @MarynkaZM has been arrested for allegedly trying to set a Christian church on fire in El Paso before a Charlie Kirk memorial event.

From Denton, where there are radical leftist groups and networks, Marquez's social media is filled with… pic.twitter.com/JV6WHoOi4T

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) September 23, 2025

Is this what turning the temperature down looks like? Good grief.

— iGGY (@windycityiggy) September 23, 2025

Jacques Strap said:

---

Irony alert.

Old lady is wearing a MAKA - Make America Kind Again shirt.

The back of her shirt says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Old woman wearing a "be kind" shirt tries to decapitate a Trump effigy pic.twitter.com/lUoSzDzDc5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 22, 2025

---

The liberal ideology in a nutshell. Preach peace and do hate

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "unarmed protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.