Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This is the Catholic faith in a nutshell. I am going to try and do enough things to save myself from eternal damnation. I just hope it's enough.

---

Please cite ONE Catholic document that states that one can SAVE oneself from damnation.

Quit posting falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

Salvation is a free gift from God. We choose to accept it or not.

Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions.

---

"Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions" -

It's not a free gift, if you accept it and then have to work through your actions to keep it. This is yet another example of Roman Catholic double talk.

---

If someone gives you a house plant and you don't water it, that doesn't change the fact it was a gift.

---

It isn't a free gift, if the plant is taken away from you if you don't water it.

---

It won't be taken away, but you can still lose it.

---

Then you were never really gifted it.

---

Obviously you were, though. Otherwise it wouldn't have been wilting on your windowsill. You're the one who wants to treat salvation as a trinket. I'm just pointing out that there are ways of losing such things without having them taken away. Of course in reality salvation is the end of the journey, not the beginning.

---

You're the one treating salvation like a plant. That's a category mistake. Salvation is an eternal state of being. If you want to equate the free gift of salvation to receiving a plant, then the better analogy would be that you're receiving an eternally living plant. If the plant dies, then clearly you never actually received an eternally living plant.

If salvation is the "end of the journey" as you say, then the gift of salvation must include that end. So if you end up not reaching that end, then apparently that gift was never really given to you.

---

Say you throw it in a dumpster, then. Or it's a pendant that you drop down the drain. The point is, a gift that gets lost is still a gift.

What you don't seem to grasp is that forgiveness is never an entitlement. It's a free gift every time you ask and receive it.

---

What you don't get is that the nature of salvation is such that it can't be lost. It isn't an object with a shelf life or something that can fall out of your pocket and get lost. It's an eternal state of being. If you lose that eternal state of being, then it never truly was eternal. It's simple logic.

According to your belief, your "free gift of salvation" isn't actually a gift of salvation, it's really a gift of the eligibility or chance to have eternal salvation.

---

You are still reifying an abstraction. Salvation is no more a "state of being" than it is a house plant. It's nothing other than the fact of being saved from death and damnation, which is the end of our journey at the time of death and judgment.

---

It's only an abstraction in that it involves eternity. But that's the reality. Your reification involves taking the infinite and eternal and making it into a finite, temporal "plant". It's resulting in a category mistake.

"HAS eternal life". You don't have eternal life, if your life isn't eternal. I'm not reifying it, Jesus is.

---

The plant analogy was a way of putting it in your terms. The thing to focus on is the difference between a gift and an entitlement. The gift of forgiveness is always free. If you decide you don't need it any more, that's on you.

---

Thankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out.

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This is the Catholic faith in a nutshell. I am going to try and do enough things to save myself from eternal damnation. I just hope it's enough.

---

Please cite ONE Catholic document that states that one can SAVE oneself from damnation.

Quit posting falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

Salvation is a free gift from God. We choose to accept it or not.

Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions.

---

"Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions" -

It's not a free gift, if you accept it and then have to work through your actions to keep it. This is yet another example of Roman Catholic double talk.

---

If someone gives you a house plant and you don't water it, that doesn't change the fact it was a gift.

---

It isn't a free gift, if the plant is taken away from you if you don't water it.

---

It won't be taken away, but you can still lose it.

---

Then you were never really gifted it.

---

Obviously you were, though. Otherwise it wouldn't have been wilting on your windowsill. You're the one who wants to treat salvation as a trinket. I'm just pointing out that there are ways of losing such things without having them taken away. Of course in reality salvation is the end of the journey, not the beginning.

---

You're the one treating salvation like a plant. That's a category mistake. Salvation is an eternal state of being. If you want to equate the free gift of salvation to receiving a plant, then the better analogy would be that you're receiving an eternally living plant. If the plant dies, then clearly you never actually received an eternally living plant.

If salvation is the "end of the journey" as you say, then the gift of salvation must include that end. So if you end up not reaching that end, then apparently that gift was never really given to you.

---

Say you throw it in a dumpster, then. Or it's a pendant that you drop down the drain. The point is, a gift that gets lost is still a gift.

What you don't seem to grasp is that forgiveness is never an entitlement. It's a free gift every time you ask and receive it.

---

What you don't get is that the nature of salvation is such that it can't be lost. It isn't an object with a shelf life or something that can fall out of your pocket and get lost. It's an eternal state of being. If you lose that eternal state of being, then it never truly was eternal. It's simple logic.

According to your belief, your "free gift of salvation" isn't actually a gift of salvation, it's really a gift of the eligibility or chance to have eternal salvation.

---

You are still reifying an abstraction. Salvation is no more a "state of being" than it is a house plant. It's nothing other than the fact of being saved from death and damnation, which is the end of our journey at the time of death and judgment.

---

It's only an abstraction in that it involves eternity. But that's the reality. Your reification involves taking the infinite and eternal and making it into a finite, temporal "plant". It's resulting in a category mistake.

"HAS eternal life". You don't have eternal life, if your life isn't eternal. I'm not reifying it, Jesus is.

---

The plant analogy was a way of putting it in your terms. The thing to focus on is the difference between a gift and an entitlement. The gift of forgiveness is always free. If you decide you don't need it any more, that's on you.

---

Thankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out.

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

I think you've answered your own question.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This is the Catholic faith in a nutshell. I am going to try and do enough things to save myself from eternal damnation. I just hope it's enough.

---

Please cite ONE Catholic document that states that one can SAVE oneself from damnation.

Quit posting falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

Salvation is a free gift from God. We choose to accept it or not.

Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions.

---

"Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions" -

It's not a free gift, if you accept it and then have to work through your actions to keep it. This is yet another example of Roman Catholic double talk.

---

If someone gives you a house plant and you don't water it, that doesn't change the fact it was a gift.

---

It isn't a free gift, if the plant is taken away from you if you don't water it.

---

It won't be taken away, but you can still lose it.

---

Then you were never really gifted it.

---

Obviously you were, though. Otherwise it wouldn't have been wilting on your windowsill. You're the one who wants to treat salvation as a trinket. I'm just pointing out that there are ways of losing such things without having them taken away. Of course in reality salvation is the end of the journey, not the beginning.

---

You're the one treating salvation like a plant. That's a category mistake. Salvation is an eternal state of being. If you want to equate the free gift of salvation to receiving a plant, then the better analogy would be that you're receiving an eternally living plant. If the plant dies, then clearly you never actually received an eternally living plant.

If salvation is the "end of the journey" as you say, then the gift of salvation must include that end. So if you end up not reaching that end, then apparently that gift was never really given to you.

---

Say you throw it in a dumpster, then. Or it's a pendant that you drop down the drain. The point is, a gift that gets lost is still a gift.

What you don't seem to grasp is that forgiveness is never an entitlement. It's a free gift every time you ask and receive it.

---

What you don't get is that the nature of salvation is such that it can't be lost. It isn't an object with a shelf life or something that can fall out of your pocket and get lost. It's an eternal state of being. If you lose that eternal state of being, then it never truly was eternal. It's simple logic.

According to your belief, your "free gift of salvation" isn't actually a gift of salvation, it's really a gift of the eligibility or chance to have eternal salvation.

---

You are still reifying an abstraction. Salvation is no more a "state of being" than it is a house plant. It's nothing other than the fact of being saved from death and damnation, which is the end of our journey at the time of death and judgment.

---

It's only an abstraction in that it involves eternity. But that's the reality. Your reification involves taking the infinite and eternal and making it into a finite, temporal "plant". It's resulting in a category mistake.

"HAS eternal life". You don't have eternal life, if your life isn't eternal. I'm not reifying it, Jesus is.

---

The plant analogy was a way of putting it in your terms. The thing to focus on is the difference between a gift and an entitlement. The gift of forgiveness is always free. If you decide you don't need it any more, that's on you.

---

Thankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out.

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

I think you've answered your own question.

---

How so? That isn't an answer to the question at all.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This is the Catholic faith in a nutshell. I am going to try and do enough things to save myself from eternal damnation. I just hope it's enough.

---

Please cite ONE Catholic document that states that one can SAVE oneself from damnation.

Quit posting falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

Salvation is a free gift from God. We choose to accept it or not.

Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions.

---

"Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions" -

It's not a free gift, if you accept it and then have to work through your actions to keep it. This is yet another example of Roman Catholic double talk.

---

If someone gives you a house plant and you don't water it, that doesn't change the fact it was a gift.

---

It isn't a free gift, if the plant is taken away from you if you don't water it.

---

It won't be taken away, but you can still lose it.

---

Then you were never really gifted it.

---

Obviously you were, though. Otherwise it wouldn't have been wilting on your windowsill. You're the one who wants to treat salvation as a trinket. I'm just pointing out that there are ways of losing such things without having them taken away. Of course in reality salvation is the end of the journey, not the beginning.

---

You're the one treating salvation like a plant. That's a category mistake. Salvation is an eternal state of being. If you want to equate the free gift of salvation to receiving a plant, then the better analogy would be that you're receiving an eternally living plant. If the plant dies, then clearly you never actually received an eternally living plant.

If salvation is the "end of the journey" as you say, then the gift of salvation must include that end. So if you end up not reaching that end, then apparently that gift was never really given to you.

---

Say you throw it in a dumpster, then. Or it's a pendant that you drop down the drain. The point is, a gift that gets lost is still a gift.

What you don't seem to grasp is that forgiveness is never an entitlement. It's a free gift every time you ask and receive it.

---

What you don't get is that the nature of salvation is such that it can't be lost. It isn't an object with a shelf life or something that can fall out of your pocket and get lost. It's an eternal state of being. If you lose that eternal state of being, then it never truly was eternal. It's simple logic.

According to your belief, your "free gift of salvation" isn't actually a gift of salvation, it's really a gift of the eligibility or chance to have eternal salvation.

---

You are still reifying an abstraction. Salvation is no more a "state of being" than it is a house plant. It's nothing other than the fact of being saved from death and damnation, which is the end of our journey at the time of death and judgment.

---

It's only an abstraction in that it involves eternity. But that's the reality. Your reification involves taking the infinite and eternal and making it into a finite, temporal "plant". It's resulting in a category mistake.

"HAS eternal life". You don't have eternal life, if your life isn't eternal. I'm not reifying it, Jesus is.

---

The plant analogy was a way of putting it in your terms. The thing to focus on is the difference between a gift and an entitlement. The gift of forgiveness is always free. If you decide you don't need it any more, that's on you.

---

Thankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out.

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

The problem with your argument is Protestants are not some monolithic group that adhere to the same or even similar beliefs, as your post seems to assume. We don't need to have some fat, bearded man in a costume who likes to be called "his imminence" explain to us "tradition" in order to know the plain language of salvation in scripture. I'd suggest reading scripture yourself instead of listening to the fat man tell you what salvation requires.

And for the record, no church that I attend says how you live doesn't matter. We are not gnostics who have a get out of jail free card. Indeed, Christians are known by a changed life and the fruit of the spirit. If that's not present, then the individual is very likely not a Christian - again not difficult concepts but regularly misconstrued and misunderstood by Catholics and orthodoxy who don't read their bibles, but rely on "his Imminence" or "Father" to tell them what scripture means.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This is the Catholic faith in a nutshell. I am going to try and do enough things to save myself from eternal damnation. I just hope it's enough.

---

Please cite ONE Catholic document that states that one can SAVE oneself from damnation.

Quit posting falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

Salvation is a free gift from God. We choose to accept it or not.

Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions.

---

"Once accepted, we can reject it by our actions" -

It's not a free gift, if you accept it and then have to work through your actions to keep it. This is yet another example of Roman Catholic double talk.

---

If someone gives you a house plant and you don't water it, that doesn't change the fact it was a gift.

---

It isn't a free gift, if the plant is taken away from you if you don't water it.

---

It won't be taken away, but you can still lose it.

---

Then you were never really gifted it.

---

Obviously you were, though. Otherwise it wouldn't have been wilting on your windowsill. You're the one who wants to treat salvation as a trinket. I'm just pointing out that there are ways of losing such things without having them taken away. Of course in reality salvation is the end of the journey, not the beginning.

---

You're the one treating salvation like a plant. That's a category mistake. Salvation is an eternal state of being. If you want to equate the free gift of salvation to receiving a plant, then the better analogy would be that you're receiving an eternally living plant. If the plant dies, then clearly you never actually received an eternally living plant.

If salvation is the "end of the journey" as you say, then the gift of salvation must include that end. So if you end up not reaching that end, then apparently that gift was never really given to you.

---

Say you throw it in a dumpster, then. Or it's a pendant that you drop down the drain. The point is, a gift that gets lost is still a gift.

What you don't seem to grasp is that forgiveness is never an entitlement. It's a free gift every time you ask and receive it.

---

What you don't get is that the nature of salvation is such that it can't be lost. It isn't an object with a shelf life or something that can fall out of your pocket and get lost. It's an eternal state of being. If you lose that eternal state of being, then it never truly was eternal. It's simple logic.

According to your belief, your "free gift of salvation" isn't actually a gift of salvation, it's really a gift of the eligibility or chance to have eternal salvation.

---

You are still reifying an abstraction. Salvation is no more a "state of being" than it is a house plant. It's nothing other than the fact of being saved from death and damnation, which is the end of our journey at the time of death and judgment.

---

It's only an abstraction in that it involves eternity. But that's the reality. Your reification involves taking the infinite and eternal and making it into a finite, temporal "plant". It's resulting in a category mistake.

"HAS eternal life". You don't have eternal life, if your life isn't eternal. I'm not reifying it, Jesus is.

---

The plant analogy was a way of putting it in your terms. The thing to focus on is the difference between a gift and an entitlement. The gift of forgiveness is always free. If you decide you don't need it any more, that's on you.

---

Thankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out.

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

We need to be clear on terms and definitions first.

What do you actually mean by belief? A person can genuinely believe Jesus is Lord and the only way to be saved and still reject Him in how they live or outright not want anything to do with it. Scripture even says demons believe and know who Christ is.

So are you talking about belief as mere mental assent: simple recognition of who Christ is…or belief as trust, allegiance, and faithfulness that expresses itself in repentance and obedience(behavior)? Until that's clear, we're talking past each other.

Do you agree that a person is justified by what he does, by how he lives, and not by faith alone? If your workaround this question is imputed righteousness, then I need to understand this: does that mean your actual behavior has nothing to do with your own free will? Are obedience, repentance, and perseverance merely irrelevant to justification, or are they real human responses that matter? Because if our actions truly play no role at all, then free will after "belief" becomes meaningless, and all the biblical commands to obey, persevere, and not fall away are reduced to warnings with no real consequence.

Scripture never says the only human response is a one-time act of belief. We are commanded to continue, abide, persevere, and work out what God is working in us. Cooperation varies, yes, but refusing to cooperate at all is called falling away. If you don't agree with this, then you must argue "once saved, always saved".

You're assuming that if cooperation is real, then salvation must be earned by quantity of works. That's a false dilemma. A sick person doesn't ask, "How healthy do I have to be for the doctor to treat me?" The question is whether they are responding to the treatment or resisting it. Repentance is not a level of performance: it's a direction.

You guys gotta understand the contradictions at hand:

Contradiction #1: Works are "necessary but irrelevant"

Works are necessary (no fruit = no salvation),
But also non-contributory (they add nothing).

That's incoherent.

Contradiction #2: The "never truly saved" escape hatch

Because justification is untouchable, any serious post conversion sin must be explained away:

"They were never truly saved."

This is not biblical logic, it's system-preserving logic.

Scripture instead says:
believers can fall away (Heb 6, 10),
branches in Christ can be cut off (John 15),
those who "escaped the world" can return and be worse off (2 Peter 2).

Those warnings make no sense if apostasy is impossible by definition.

Contradiction #3: Assurance becomes circular

They promise certainty:

"You can know you're saved."

But how do you know?
If by faith alone, then behavior is irrelevant.
If by fruit, then salvation is always provisional.

So assurance collapses into:
"I know I'm saved because I see evidence, but if I later don't see evidence, I was never saved."

That's not assurance, it's retrospective speculation. We all sin greatly and this paradigm will make Protestants think "maybe I don't have real faith".

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

Doc HollidayThankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

We need to be clear on terms and definitions first.

What do you actually mean by belief? A person can genuinely believe Jesus is Lord and the only way to be saved and still reject Him in how they live or outright not want anything to do with it. Scripture even says demons believe and know who Christ is.

So are you talking about belief as mere mental assent: simple recognition of who Christ is…or belief as trust, allegiance, and faithfulness that expresses itself in repentance and obedience(behavior)? Until that's clear, we're talking past each other.

Do you agree that a person is justified by what he does, by how he lives, and not by faith alone? If your workaround this question is imputed righteousness, then I need to understand this: does that mean your actual behavior has nothing to do with your own free will? Are obedience, repentance, and perseverance merely irrelevant to justification, or are they real human responses that matter? Because if our actions truly play no role at all, then free will after "belief" becomes meaningless, and all the biblical commands to obey, persevere, and not fall away are reduced to warnings with no real consequence.

Scripture never says the only human response is a one-time act of belief. We are commanded to continue, abide, persevere, and work out what God is working in us. Cooperation varies, yes, but refusing to cooperate at all is called falling away. If you don't agree with this, then you must argue "once saved, always saved".

You're assuming that if cooperation is real, then salvation must be earned by quantity of works. That's a false dilemma. A sick person doesn't ask, "How healthy do I have to be for the doctor to treat me?" The question is whether they are responding to the treatment or resisting it. Repentance is not a level of performance: it's a direction.

---

"Belief" is faith. Faith is not just head knowledge, it involves putting one's trust in Jesus. Demons are not given the offer of salvation through Jesus, so there's no promise for them to trust in. The Bible defines faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Note that the biblical definition of faith does not involve any action, only that which is in the heart. True faith will lead to action, but the action itself isn't faith, it's the fruit of that faith. This is proven in Scripture, by Paul's example of Abraham being justified to righteousness by his belief, not by his actions (Romans 4).

Imputed righteousness is not a "workaround", it is what Scripture teaches. And it HAS to be this way. Because NO ONE will have the righteousness needed to get to Heaven on their own. Jesus' perfection and sacrifice has to be credited, i.e. imputed to us. Scripture clearly tells us that we are credited this righteousness through faith, not by our works.

I'm not sure how your issue with free will is relevant to the question. Suppose we do have the free will to put our faith in Jesus, AND we have the free will to obey, repent, persevere, etc. in response to that faith. Still, that has nothing to do with whether faith alone saves or not. If we are truly saved by our faith alone, and not by our free will actions of obedience, then that in no way means those actions are "meaningless". It just means that they don't determine your salvation. They are still meaningful in that they show God that you love him, which pleases him and brings the believer closer to him. Love isn't truly love if it's not from our free will, in my belief, and that is what God wants. "Love" that someone has to show in order to avoid punishment (Hell) is a forced love, and it isn't real love. Plus, our free will acts of obedience leads to eternal rewards in heaven. Not "meaningless" at all.

True belief isn't a "one time belief". True belief persists and perseveres. "Falling away" has to do with falling away from faith, not a "lack or refusal of cooperation". If one refuses to obey, then it means they don't truly believe. "Once saved always saved" does not mean that a false, "stated" belief is what saves. It means that true belief leads to the Holy Spirit entering, where it is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14). If someone who truly believes loses their salvation, then it would mean that Jesus lost something that was given to him, and that God's will was thwarted:

"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."- John 6:39-40

Doc HollidayThankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

You're assuming that if cooperation is real, then salvation must be earned by quantity of works. That's a false dilemma. A sick person doesn't ask, "How healthy do I have to be for the doctor to treat me?" The question is whether they are responding to the treatment or resisting it. Repentance is not a level of performance: it's a direction.

---

But repentance isn't all you're saying is part of the "cooperation". You're also saying obedience is. You're saying that water baptism and the Eucharist are acts of that obedience. And that's clearly performance based. The question then becomes what level of obedience is required in order to have "cooperated" enough to be saved. It isn't a false dilemma, it's the logical consequence of the view.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

Did Jesus mean literal water when he talked with the woman at the well in John chapter 4? He even doubled down on it when the woman believed him to be talking about literal water, didnt' he?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

Did Jesus mean literal water when he talked with the woman at the well in John chapter 4? He even doubled down on it when the woman believed him to be talking about literal water, didnt' he?

---

Now there you go interpreting too. You "plain language" folks sure do make things complicated.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

Did Jesus mean literal water when he talked with the woman at the well in John chapter 4? He even doubled down on it when the woman believed him to be talking about literal water, didnt' he?

---

Now there you go interpreting too. You "plain language" folks sure do make things complicated.

---

Don't see how its complicated that Jesus was being figurative there. What's complicated is how suddenly you shift from the figuratively interpretive mode in chapter 4 to becoming a "plain language folk" yourself only two chapters later.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayThankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

You're assuming that if cooperation is real, then salvation must be earned by quantity of works. That's a false dilemma. A sick person doesn't ask, "How healthy do I have to be for the doctor to treat me?" The question is whether they are responding to the treatment or resisting it. Repentance is not a level of performance: it's a direction.

---

But repentance isn't all you're saying is part of the "cooperation". You're also saying obedience is. You're saying that water baptism and the Eucharist are acts of that obedience. And that's clearly performance based. The question then becomes what level of obedience is required in order to have "cooperated" enough to be saved. It isn't a false dilemma, it's the logical consequence of the view.

---

You're reasoning like an attorney, not like Scripture. You keep demanding a measurable cutoff, how much obedience, how much cooperation, what level is enough, because you've already assumed salvation must function as a legal verdict. That assumption is doing all the work in your argument, and it's nowhere in the text. Scripture doesn't talk about salvation as crossing a minimum bar: it talks about abiding, remaining, persevering, and not hardening your heart.

Because of that legal framework, you're forced to treat repentance, baptism, obedience, and the Eucharist as "performances." That's not biblical, it's forensic. You can only see actions as either earning or irrelevant, so you collapse participation in grace into works righteousness. Scripture never says that. Receiving medicine isn't "performance based," and neither is receiving grace.

Your cutoff obsession also empties the warnings of Scripture of any real meaning. If there is no real possibility of falling away, then commands to continue, remain, and not be cut off are theatrics. The New Testament doesn't warn imaginary Christians, it warns real believers precisely because perseverance is not automatic.

What you're really protecting here isn't grace, but entitlement to certainty. You want salvation settled as an irreversible status so that obedience can never place any demand on you in the future. That's contract theology, not covenant life. Scripture offers assurance through ongoing communion, not through a past decision that renders the future irrelevant.

Ironically, the system you're defending ends up more legalistic than the one you're accusing. You didn't remove the cutoff, you just moved it to a single moment of belief and declared everything afterward legally untouchable.

I can't stress enough that you need to study church history and understand how nominalism (your view) didn't exist in the times of the apostles or early church. Nominalism is the idea that only names and categories are real, not shared natures or participatory realities. Once salvation is reduced to a label rather than participation in divine life, it has to be framed legally: imputed righteousness, irreversible status, and guaranteed assurance. But the apostolic worldview is ontological, not nominalist. You're demanding legal certainty where Scripture gives relational knowledge. Christianity is not nominalist.

Do you "have" the Holy Spirit as a legal possession?
Or do you participate in the Spirit as you remain in Christ?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayThankfully, most Protestants in practice don't actually hold a strict sola fide position. Surveys show that only about 46% of U.S. Protestants say faith alone is needed to get into heaven, while a majority say that both faith and good deeds are necessary in some sense. That already tells you that classical Reformation theology isn't what most Protestants actually believe or live out. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most Protestants also have little familiarity with the Reformation or the early Church. Many couldn't name the Five Solas, and their theology is often shaped more by modern evangelical culture than by Luther, Calvin, or the Church Fathers. Even historically, sola fide was not always interpreted in the flattened, decision-based way it often is today. Its more individualistic and "once-saved" expressions developed gradually and became especially dominant in certain evangelical circles in the last century.

The real danger is that sola fide can be interpreted all the way to antinomianism if someone wants to take it there. Once salvation is treated as a settled status rather than a lived relationship, behavior can be functionally disconnected from salvation. Millions of Christians genuinely believe their "ticket to heaven" is punched regardless of how they live unfortunately: there's no repentance or desire to transform and they hold so much pride and lack the humility to believe they themselves can fall away.

At the root of the disagreement is free will. There is no point at which human response disappears. Scripture consistently assumes that we can cooperate with grace or resist it. Any model of salvation that denies the ongoing role of the human will ends up emptying repentance, warnings, and perseverance of their real meaning.

---

Then, I again ask you, for maybe the fifth time: if salvation requires our cooperation in terms of our performance, then what amount or degree of performance is required? What is the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus saving one person at one level, but not one just a smidge below? And how can one truly know they are saved, as Scripture promises, if they don't if they've reached the cutoff point?

It has to be based on faith. Otherwise, no matter how you argue it, you're ultimately putting it on your works, and Scripture is crystal clear that that's false, even anathema.

Anyone who says they believe but don't live repentantly does not truly believe. You keep discounting the effect of the Holy Spirit, which by the way Scripture says is a "seal" and "guarantee" of our salvation.

The free will human response is to believe. The amount of good works, i.e. how much they've "cooperated" is going to vary between believers depending on their maturity and situation. You've argued that water baptism saves you, but then you say it's not enough to save you. The reason your view is contradicting and confused is precisely because you reject sola fide.

---

You're assuming that if cooperation is real, then salvation must be earned by quantity of works. That's a false dilemma. A sick person doesn't ask, "How healthy do I have to be for the doctor to treat me?" The question is whether they are responding to the treatment or resisting it. Repentance is not a level of performance: it's a direction.

---

But repentance isn't all you're saying is part of the "cooperation". You're also saying obedience is. You're saying that water baptism and the Eucharist are acts of that obedience. And that's clearly performance based. The question then becomes what level of obedience is required in order to have "cooperated" enough to be saved. It isn't a false dilemma, it's the logical consequence of the view.

---

You're reasoning like an attorney, not like Scripture. You keep demanding a measurable cutoff, how much obedience, how much cooperation, what level is enough, because you've already assumed salvation must function as a legal verdict. That assumption is doing all the work in your argument, and it's nowhere in the text. Scripture doesn't talk about salvation as crossing a minimum bar: it talks about abiding, remaining, persevering, and not hardening your heart.

Because of that legal framework, you're forced to treat repentance, baptism, obedience, and the Eucharist as "performances." That's not biblical, it's forensic. You can only see actions as either earning or irrelevant, so you collapse participation in grace into works righteousness. Scripture never says that. Receiving medicine isn't "performance based," and neither is receiving grace.

Your cutoff obsession also empties the warnings of Scripture of any real meaning. If there is no real possibility of falling away, then commands to continue, remain, and not be cut off are theatrics. The New Testament doesn't warn imaginary Christians, it warns real believers precisely because perseverance is not automatic.

What you're really protecting here isn't grace, but entitlement to certainty. You want salvation settled as an irreversible status so that obedience can never place any demand on you in the future. That's contract theology, not covenant life. Scripture offers assurance through ongoing communion, not through a past decision that renders the future irrelevant.

Ironically, the system you're defending ends up more legalistic than the one you're accusing. You didn't remove the cutoff, you just moved it to a single moment of belief and declared everything afterward legally untouchable.

I can't stress enough that you need to study church history and understand how nominalism (your view) didn't exist in the times of the apostles or early church. Nominalism is the idea that only names and categories are real, not shared natures or participatory realities. Once salvation is reduced to a label rather than participation in divine life, it has to be framed legally: imputed righteousness, irreversible status, and guaranteed assurance. But the apostolic worldview is ontological, not nominalist. You're demanding legal certainty where Scripture gives relational knowledge. Christianity is not nominalist.

Do you "have" the Holy Spirit as a legal possession?
Or do you participate in the Spirit as you remain in Christ?

---

You're not understanding the concept of "works" vs faith, nor are you understanding the significant theological and soteriological problems with your view. "Works", i.e. performance, is anything that you have to accomplish on your own. Water baptism and taking the Eucharist are two such examples. So is obedience to the Law. The significant problem with the view that "cooperation" in the form of water baptism, the Eucharist, obedience, etc. is determinant of your salvation rather than faith alone is that you either have to establish a point where your "cooperation" is enough and when it is not, or say that you can't ever know if you've cooperated enough, which is to say you can never know that you are saved, which is clearly against Scripture. This is the reality of your view. You're merely trying to argue this away with empty arguments of it being a dismissible "legal framework" without actually solving your problem. It doesn't go away. I should point out that you yourself have argued that Scripture DOES establish "legal" points, because you argued that Peter saying "baptism now saves you" and Jesus saying we if we eat his flesh we will have eternal life (i.e. the Eucharist, in your view) are determinative cutoff points for salvation. Determinative, NOT "normative", as the language clearly indicates. So your view is completely contradictory and all over the place. You're saying water baptism and the Eucharist saves, and then saying that they don't necessarily.

The theological and soteriological problem with this view is this: you obviously don't think that ZERO works saves, and I will bet that you agree that no one can be PERFECT in their works. So the answer is somewhere in the middle. That would mean, according to your view, that God is able to save someone with X amount of "cooperation" in the form of works, yet for some reason he isn't able or willing to save someone either a tiny bit less works, or someone with the same amount of works, but they're not going in the amorphously variable "right direction". Both are imperfect, but God would be saving one person to Heaven, but another imperfect person across some arbitrary point. This is not a just God.

A just God requires PERFECTION for eternal life. NONE of us can be perfect. That's why we need to be GIVEN Jesus' perfection, as a gift received by faith. And Jesus freely offers this to anyone who believes in him. This is the gospel. Your view is showing that you really don't understand it, nor do you believe in it. Consider a huge problem with your view - it means that someone can believe in Jesus, but not perform in the area of "cooperation" enough, and thus not be saved. This would falsify what Jesus declared, that those who believe in Him will be saved.

Back to business tomorrow. Hope you all had a great Christmas and new year.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

But you need to interpret their interpretation. And you've shown you can't even do that correctly. So you're back to where you started.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

No. We agree that for centuries the Catholic Church has believed in this erroneous idea, certainly, but there's simply no scriptural support whatsoever for your view. These verses are simple and don't require some "Father" to understand their plain language. And the thief is your conondrum.

Thank God we have a God who loves us and doesn't need us to simply check the boxes. That's against his nature as expressed in scripture. I pray one day you see the light on that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you don't do any interpretation at all? Don't have any biases? You just read it and know exactly what God meant?

---

Of course some verses require interpretation, while others are clearly stated and easily understandable for even the layperson.

We know theologians regularly disagree regarding certain passages. Even some of the early "Church Fathers," as you called them, disagreed with some of Tertullian's stances. Just because it's an old interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one.

---

But you don't need to interpret John 3:5. When Jesus says "water," there's clearly no way it could be a reference to water.

---

What part of some verses require interpretation and others don't didn't you understand? As busty pointed out, Jesus often times spoke figuratively. And he also at times spoke plainly.

---

Well, you said we didn't need the Church Fathers or anyone else to tell us what we can plainly read in the verse. So does it require interpretation or not?

---

No, that's not what I said. You need to revisit my response and you will see I wasn't referring to that verse but the words of Paul and Jesus in general. As I've said - the great weight of scripture is clear on salvations requirements, and Christ and Paul were clear on those points.

---

The great weight of Scripture as interpreted by you. Reading the verse in its context, with all the references to water baptism in John 1 and throughout the rest of John 3, could any reasonable person conclude that John 3:5 refers to the same thing? If so, why should we accept your view of the "nature of God" over that of learned Christians who lived and wrote closer in time to the Apostles?

---

We've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable.

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

---

I and others have explained the difference between normative and absolute requirements several times. My point is that you also rely on sources outside of Scripture to form your interpretations. Your citing "history" in support of your views demonstrates this. Because you don't realize you're doing it, apparently, you won't allow anyone else to do the same. The minute a Catholic starts talking about history, you plug your ears and play the sola scriptura card. This makes a discussion very difficult.

Sam LowryWe've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

---

I and others have explained the difference between normative and absolute requirements several times. My point is that you also rely on sources outside of Scripture to form your interpretations. Your citing "history" in support of your views demonstrates this. Because you don't realize you're doing it, apparently, you won't allow anyone else to do the same. The minute a Catholic starts talking about history, you plug your ears and play the sola scriptura card. This makes a discussion very difficult.

---

The issue isn't the difference between normative and absolute requirements. The issue is the contradiction between your "normative" view and your interpretation of Scripture.

You're still dodging and misdirecting.

The "history" I'm referring to is not a historical tradition that is outside of Scripture, unlike what you must refer to in order to defend your beliefs. That's the difference, and that's the point that you're persistently dodging.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWe've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

---

I and others have explained the difference between normative and absolute requirements several times. My point is that you also rely on sources outside of Scripture to form your interpretations. Your citing "history" in support of your views demonstrates this. Because you don't realize you're doing it, apparently, you won't allow anyone else to do the same. The minute a Catholic starts talking about history, you plug your ears and play the sola scriptura card. This makes a discussion very difficult.

---

The issue isn't the difference between normative and absolute requirements. The issue is the contradiction between your "normative" view and your interpretation of Scripture.

You're still dodging and misdirecting.

The "history" I'm referring to is not a historical tradition that is outside of Scripture, unlike what you must refer to in order to defend your beliefs. That's the difference, and that's the point that you're persistently dodging.

---

Whatever you're referring to, you are basing your beliefs on some human tradition.

The contradiction is between my view and what you insist Catholics must believe, not what we actually believe. I would again suggest trying to understand Catholic teaching first.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWe've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

---

I and others have explained the difference between normative and absolute requirements several times. My point is that you also rely on sources outside of Scripture to form your interpretations. Your citing "history" in support of your views demonstrates this. Because you don't realize you're doing it, apparently, you won't allow anyone else to do the same. The minute a Catholic starts talking about history, you plug your ears and play the sola scriptura card. This makes a discussion very difficult.

---

The issue isn't the difference between normative and absolute requirements. The issue is the contradiction between your "normative" view and your interpretation of Scripture.

You're still dodging and misdirecting.

The "history" I'm referring to is not a historical tradition that is outside of Scripture, unlike what you must refer to in order to defend your beliefs. That's the difference, and that's the point that you're persistently dodging.

---

Whatever you're referring to, you are basing your beliefs on some human tradition.

The contradiction is between my view and what you insist Catholics must believe, not what we actually believe. I would again suggest trying to understand Catholic teaching first.

---

I find it odd that protestants claim salvation is by faith alone, yet often deny salvation to Orthodox/Catholics who explicitly believe in Christ. They redefine "faith" to include adherence to protestant doctrines (sola fide/sola scriptura) which makes correct theology, not faith alone, the functional criterion for salvation, undermining the very principle they seek to defend.

It's like arguing that one just needs faith in the five solas to be saved. They're gatekeeping salvation and it's highly legalistic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWe've been over this before. It's not my interpretation. The plain language of these verses is indisputable. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

It's why the thief, who repented of his sins and believed in Christ, was in paradise, as opposed to Hades, or Purgatory.

---

Again, your interpretation. Most Christians throughout history have believed otherwise.

---

Even if that were correct, it's an appeal to the majority fallacy. Jesus did say that the road to destruction was wide, remember?

And it also brings up another instance of you contradicting your own "normative" view of salvation - if Jesus was talking about water baptism here, then clearly he's saying it is an absolute necessity, i.e. "definitive", not "normative".

---

As I've explained, whether baptism is a necessity and whether it's normative or absolute are different questions.

Appeal to the people isn't a fallacy when the belief of the people itself is at issue. The definition of true Christian belief and teaching is inseparable from the question, "What have Christians always believed and taught?"

If there's no infallible authority outside Scripture, my authority is just as good as yours.

---

You claimed that water baptism, Eucharist, etc are "normative" requirements for salvation. But Jesus' words according to your own interpretation clearly contradict that. Stop trying to dodge the issue. The question is why do you still believe in your "normative" view after it's been clearly shown to be contradictory to your own interpretation of Scripture? That is very odd.

The "belief of the people" wasn't the issue. Stop lying.

The question of "what Christians always believed and taught" has mutliple conflicting answers, therefore it is most certainly separable from the question of what is true and correct Christian teaching. Your argument here is just nonsensical.

Yes, both of our "authorities" are fallible. However, our arguments are not arising from our own authority - I'm arguing from the authority of the word of God, and you are arguing from that plus the addition of the word of men.

---

You are also arguing from the word of God with the addition of the word of men. The only difference is that in your case it's a much later addition. Same goes for Mothra.

---

Again, every argument we are making is from Scripture. We aren't making arguments for things that are completely absent in scripture like you do, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her assumption, praying to saints, bowing down to and kissing their icons, etc. Those things are from the word of men, not the word of God.

What you are trying to do is argue that having a certain interpretation of Scripture that goes against the Roman Catholic interpretation is arguing from the word of men, but that's just a dishonest framing. Your whole argumention here is dishonest and you keep dodging important questions. Our interpretation is still coming solely from Scripture using logic, reason, history, and common sense, not the word of man-made tradition like many of your beliefs which are completely absent in Scripture and which contradict logic, reason, history, and common sense.

---

Your beliefs on baptism, communion, faith, works, and a whole host of other issues are not self-evidently scriptural. They depend on an interpretative tradition of some kind.

---

The issue wasn't whether they were "self-evident" to you, or whether they depended on interpretation. Stop dodging and deflecting.

And I'm still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and your own interpretation of Scripture. I get that you're trying to run away from it, as you do for all the other questions you avoided by attempting misdirection, but it's not working.

---

I and others have explained the difference between normative and absolute requirements several times. My point is that you also rely on sources outside of Scripture to form your interpretations. Your citing "history" in support of your views demonstrates this. Because you don't realize you're doing it, apparently, you won't allow anyone else to do the same. The minute a Catholic starts talking about history, you plug your ears and play the sola scriptura card. This makes a discussion very difficult.

---

The issue isn't the difference between normative and absolute requirements. The issue is the contradiction between your "normative" view and your interpretation of Scripture.

You're still dodging and misdirecting.

The "history" I'm referring to is not a historical tradition that is outside of Scripture, unlike what you must refer to in order to defend your beliefs. That's the difference, and that's the point that you're persistently dodging.

---

Whatever you're referring to, you are basing your beliefs on some human tradition.

The contradiction is between my view and what you insist Catholics must believe, not what we actually believe. I would again suggest trying to understand Catholic teaching first.

---

You're deceptively calling "human tradition" the tradition of an interpretation of Scripture. That is still being biblically based. Regardless, it isn't even true that I base my beliefs on that "tradition". It is only a component of consideration among all the evidence, including the context within its original language, the scholarly debate, my own reason, logic, and common sense. All while asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance.

On the other hand, YOUR "human tradition" is that tradition that is NOT scripturally based. I've already named many of them throughout this and other threads, and they are NOT a misunderstanding of what Roman Catholicism teaches. This is yet another dodge and misdirection in order to get out your obvious contradiction between your "normative" view of salvation and the "definitive" nature of your own interpretation of salvation passages. You can't resolve it, so you're attempting your usual sophistry.