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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Huge strawman, here. You once again appear to believe protestants are some monolithic group who hold the same beliefs, ignoring the reality that many protestant denominations are as different from each other as they are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You can't be this glib and ignorant, right? You're just being obtuse, and understand that each of the denominations hold VERY different beliefs, right?

As a member of a reformed church, I can say with certainty that there is much divergence of belief, even among the members of our church. There are few essential beliefs to salvation - belief in Christ, repentance and forgiveness. As long as those are truly present in an individual, then so is the Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter if that individual is an Evangelical who likes worship bands and coffee bars, or an Orthdox parishioner who listen to bearded fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Imminence."

Now, I've met a number of Catholics who believe ONLY Catholics are Christian, so you may have simply missed the mark in your post, which should have been directed at Catholicism in general. But again, it doesn't feel like you are incredibly well read or knowledgeable on these subjects.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Huge strawman, here. You once again appear to believe protestants are some monolithic group who hold the same beliefs, ignoring the reality that many protestant denominations are as different from each other as they are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You can't be this glib and ignorant, right? You're just being obtuse, and understand that each of the denominations hold VERY different beliefs, right?

As a member of a reformed church, I can say with certainty that there is much divergence of belief, even among the members of our church. There are few essential beliefs to salvation - belief in Christ, repentance and forgiveness. As long as those are truly present in an individual, then so is the Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter if that individual is an Evangelical who likes worship bands and coffee bars, or an Orthdox parishioner who listen to bearded fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Imminence."

Now, I've met a number of Catholics who believe ONLY Catholics are Christian, so you may have simply missed the mark in your post, which should have been directed at Catholicism in general. But again, it doesn't feel like you are incredibly well read or knowledgeable on these subjects.

---

I didn't claim Protestants are monolithic, I said "often," which is plainly true.

My argument isn't about your personal view or the existence of diversity within Protestantism. It's about a widely held Protestant claim, especially in Reformed and evangelical contexts, that Catholics or Orthodox are not saved because they reject sola fide or sola scriptura. When that claim is made, belief in Christ is no longer sufficient: assent to Protestant doctrinal categories becomes the functional test of "saving faith."

You've actually confirmed my point by rejecting that move. If, as you say, Catholics and Orthodox can be saved by genuinely trusting Christ without affirming Protestant distinctives, then the critique doesn't apply to you…but it still applies to those Protestants who deny their salvation on doctrinal grounds. Pointing out diversity doesn't refute the argument, it just shows that some Protestants avoid the problem while others run straight into it.

That's the tension I'm highlighting, not a caricature.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Huge strawman, here. You once again appear to believe protestants are some monolithic group who hold the same beliefs, ignoring the reality that many protestant denominations are as different from each other as they are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You can't be this glib and ignorant, right? You're just being obtuse, and understand that each of the denominations hold VERY different beliefs, right?

As a member of a reformed church, I can say with certainty that there is much divergence of belief, even among the members of our church. There are few essential beliefs to salvation - belief in Christ, repentance and forgiveness. As long as those are truly present in an individual, then so is the Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter if that individual is an Evangelical who likes worship bands and coffee bars, or an Orthdox parishioner who listen to bearded fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Imminence."

Now, I've met a number of Catholics who believe ONLY Catholics are Christian, so you may have simply missed the mark in your post, which should have been directed at Catholicism in general. But again, it doesn't feel like you are incredibly well read or knowledgeable on these subjects.

---

I didn't claim Protestants are monolithic, I said "often," which is plainly true.

My argument isn't about your personal view or the existence of diversity within Protestantism. It's about a widely held Protestant claim, especially in Reformed and evangelical contexts, that Catholics or Orthodox are not saved because they reject sola fide or sola scriptura. When that claim is made, belief in Christ is no longer sufficient: assent to Protestant doctrinal categories becomes the functional test of "saving faith."

You've actually confirmed my point by rejecting that move. If, as you say, Catholics and Orthodox can be saved by genuinely trusting Christ without affirming Protestant distinctives, then the critique doesn't apply to you…but it still applies to those Protestants who deny their salvation on doctrinal grounds. Pointing out diversity doesn't refute the argument, it just shows that some Protestants avoid the problem while others run straight into it.

That's the tension I'm highlighting, not a caricature.

---

You're either 1) making a false assertion, out of pure ignorance; or 2) just outright lying. Reformed theology does not teach one must believe sola scriptura and sola fide to be saved. I know a number of misguided Christians who believe that they are saved by both faith and works, but it doesn't mean they're not Christian.

You're making another baseless and unsupported assertion unfortunately. As I said above, the essentials of salvation are clear, and are clearly expressed in scripture. As long as one adheres to those, he or she is saved.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Huge strawman, here. You once again appear to believe protestants are some monolithic group who hold the same beliefs, ignoring the reality that many protestant denominations are as different from each other as they are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You can't be this glib and ignorant, right? You're just being obtuse, and understand that each of the denominations hold VERY different beliefs, right?

As a member of a reformed church, I can say with certainty that there is much divergence of belief, even among the members of our church. There are few essential beliefs to salvation - belief in Christ, repentance and forgiveness. As long as those are truly present in an individual, then so is the Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter if that individual is an Evangelical who likes worship bands and coffee bars, or an Orthdox parishioner who listen to bearded fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Imminence."

Now, I've met a number of Catholics who believe ONLY Catholics are Christian, so you may have simply missed the mark in your post, which should have been directed at Catholicism in general. But again, it doesn't feel like you are incredibly well read or knowledgeable on these subjects.

---

I didn't claim Protestants are monolithic, I said "often," which is plainly true.

My argument isn't about your personal view or the existence of diversity within Protestantism. It's about a widely held Protestant claim, especially in Reformed and evangelical contexts, that Catholics or Orthodox are not saved because they reject sola fide or sola scriptura. When that claim is made, belief in Christ is no longer sufficient: assent to Protestant doctrinal categories becomes the functional test of "saving faith."

You've actually confirmed my point by rejecting that move. If, as you say, Catholics and Orthodox can be saved by genuinely trusting Christ without affirming Protestant distinctives, then the critique doesn't apply to you…but it still applies to those Protestants who deny their salvation on doctrinal grounds. Pointing out diversity doesn't refute the argument, it just shows that some Protestants avoid the problem while others run straight into it.

That's the tension I'm highlighting, not a caricature.

---

You're either 1) making a false assertion, out of pure ignorance; or 2) just outright lying. Reformed theology does not teach one must believe sola scriptura and sola fide to be saved. I know a number of misguided Christians who believe that they are justified by both faith and works, but it doesn't mean they're not Christian.

You're making another baseless and unsupported assertion unfortunately. As I said above, the essentials of salvation are clear, and are clearly expressed in scripture. As long as one adheres to those, he or she is saved.

---

If you think no Protestants make that argument, that's an empirical disagreement, not a refutation of the logic involved.

They do make that argument. See John MacArthur for one example: "The Catholic system is a false religion… It represents a different gospel." (Ashamed of the Gospel, sermons & interviews). He has repeatedly denied that Catholicism is Christian as a system and has said Catholics must abandon Catholic doctrine to be saved.

On this website alone I've heard the following:
"Catholics believe in works, not grace"
"They aren't Christians"
"They need to be saved"
"They worship Mary / idols"
"Orthodox/Catholics trust sacraments instead of Christ"
All of these claims would have to argue they're not saved.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Huge strawman, here. You once again appear to believe protestants are some monolithic group who hold the same beliefs, ignoring the reality that many protestant denominations are as different from each other as they are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You can't be this glib and ignorant, right? You're just being obtuse, and understand that each of the denominations hold VERY different beliefs, right?

As a member of a reformed church, I can say with certainty that there is much divergence of belief, even among the members of our church. There are few essential beliefs to salvation - belief in Christ, repentance and forgiveness. As long as those are truly present in an individual, then so is the Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter if that individual is an Evangelical who likes worship bands and coffee bars, or an Orthdox parishioner who listen to bearded fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Imminence."

Now, I've met a number of Catholics who believe ONLY Catholics are Christian, so you may have simply missed the mark in your post, which should have been directed at Catholicism in general. But again, it doesn't feel like you are incredibly well read or knowledgeable on these subjects.

---

I didn't claim Protestants are monolithic, I said "often," which is plainly true.

My argument isn't about your personal view or the existence of diversity within Protestantism. It's about a widely held Protestant claim, especially in Reformed and evangelical contexts, that Catholics or Orthodox are not saved because they reject sola fide or sola scriptura. When that claim is made, belief in Christ is no longer sufficient: assent to Protestant doctrinal categories becomes the functional test of "saving faith."

You've actually confirmed my point by rejecting that move. If, as you say, Catholics and Orthodox can be saved by genuinely trusting Christ without affirming Protestant distinctives, then the critique doesn't apply to you…but it still applies to those Protestants who deny their salvation on doctrinal grounds. Pointing out diversity doesn't refute the argument, it just shows that some Protestants avoid the problem while others run straight into it.

That's the tension I'm highlighting, not a caricature.

---

You're either 1) making a false assertion, out of pure ignorance; or 2) just outright lying. Reformed theology does not teach one must believe sola scriptura and sola fide to be saved. I know a number of misguided Christians who believe that they are justified by both faith and works, but it doesn't mean they're not Christian.

You're making another baseless and unsupported assertion unfortunately. As I said above, the essentials of salvation are clear, and are clearly expressed in scripture. As long as one adheres to those, he or she is saved.

---

If you think no Protestants make that argument, that's an empirical disagreement, not a refutation of the logic involved.

They do make that argument. See John MacArthur for one example: "The Catholic system is a false religion… It represents a different gospel." (Ashamed of the Gospel, sermons & interviews). He has repeatedly denied that Catholicism is Christian as a system and has said Catholics must abandon Catholic doctrine to be saved.

On this website alone I've heard the following:
"Catholics believe in works, not grace"
"They aren't Christians"
"They need to be saved"
"They worship Mary / idols"
"Orthodox/Catholics trust sacraments instead of Christ"
All of these claims would have to argue they're not saved.

---

I would submit this isn't an empirical disagreement, but you yet again mischaracterizing a protestant position to support your false narrative. The basics of salvation are quite clear. I know of no reformed theologian - including MacArthur - that has said a person who is Catholic or practices Catholicism cannot be Christian, much less that one must adhere to sola fide or sola scriptura to be saved. For the record, a quick google search likewise failed to find any evidence that John MacArthur stated as such.

Theoretically, one can adhere to bad theology - such as the Catholic belief in a works-based faith - and still be saved by the blood of Christ as long as they adhere to the essentials of salvation.

Now, does their misguided position on the subject put them in danger? You bet. I've met many a Catholic who, if you asked them why they are saved, would tell you they are "good people." In fact, it is remarkable to me how many Catholics miss the mark on the essentials of salvation. This of course is the antithesis of grace, and very bad theology, which is why I certainly understand MacArthur's concerns with Catholic doctrine (I share them). But I've also met Catholics who adhere to the essentials.

As for people on this website, I haven't gone back to confirm all your quotes, but you were speaking in much broader terms than a "few posters on this website," as you well know. You were referring to all protestants, generally - a fact as you know I took issue with.

Mothra 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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

---

Wow.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

---

Wow.

---

I want to see you saved. That is why I speak truth.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

---

Wow.

---

I want to see you saved. That is why I speak truth.

---

He believes in Christ, so he's saved according to sola fide is he not?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

---

Wow.

---

I want to see you saved. That is why I speak truth.

---

He believes in Christ, so he's saved according to sola fide is he not?

---

Depends on what you mean by "believes." How do you define it, based on what scripture says on the subject?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

Sure they are. You've just been too brainwashed in Catholicism to see it. You purport to be a Christian, but don't even understand the nature of God. To you, he's a taskmaster that requires ministerial acts to earn salvation (until he doesn't of course - see the thief).

---

Wow.

---

I want to see you saved. That is why I speak truth.

---

He believes in Christ, so he's saved according to sola fide is he not?

---

You're forgetting the "sola" part of faith in Christ. You're not very good at these concepts.

What is Sola fide again?

1 Corinthians 2:9 NIV
[9] However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" the things God has prepared for those who love him

Let's pray that God uses these threads to lead mutitudes to Him for Salvation.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

What is Sola fide again?

---

Translated into english, "faith alone."

Often put forth by protestantism with proof texts from Romans to convey the idea that faith alone saves without realizing that the context for these verses is that it is faith aoart from the works of the Old Covenant that save...not a fruitless faith.

In practice, it becomes "solo fide" and most Christians who follow the creed end up abandoning most practices of Christian discipline putting them in the crosshairs of Satan.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works. This is the consistent witness of the original church, the Eastern Orthodox church. Salvation was twisted by the Latin Patriarchate as something to be dispensed from its treasury of merit through its office of the keys. In response, the Protestant reformation violently reacted and became allergic to works entirely.

Now both institutions are spinning out of control.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

What is Sola fide again?

---

Salvation was twisted by the Latin Patriarchate as something to be dispensed from its treasury of merit through its office of the keys. In response, the Protestant reformation violently reacted and became allergic to works entirely.

---

I suspect TarpDuster won't appreciate your mischaracterizing Catholic teaching. He's made it pretty clear that's his job.

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

Realitybites said:

---

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

---

Blocking posters is for weak minded snowflakes. My experience with them is most have great difficulty defending their positions.

I find it odd that the schismatic See of Constantinople should suffer such delusions of grandeur. Orthodoxy is by no means insignificant, but the universal church it is not.

As for the indulgences, they're not purported to be salvific. They're of no use to anyone who isn't saved by grace through faith in Christ.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

---

Blocking posters is for weak minded snowflakes. My experience with them is most have great difficulty defending their positions.

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

---

Blocking posters is for weak minded snowflakes. My experience with them is most have great difficulty defending their positions.

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Young pup constantly ignores arguments that refute his silly takes. He couldn't defend an argument to save his life

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

The Lord is Good and Worthy to be praised.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

---

Blocking posters is for weak minded snowflakes. My experience with them is most have great difficulty defending their positions.

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

Have a great weekend everyone

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I blocked tarp a long time ago when he said "if Arius agrees with me, the Arius was right." That's moving from legitmate theological debate to pearls before swine.

"Indulgences attached to the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Those who wear the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception and belong to the Marian Fathers Confraternity can receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions* on the following days:
The day of investiture with the Scapular of the Immaculate Conception;
The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8;
The solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15;
Christmas Day, December 25;
Presentation of the Lord, February 2;
Easter Sunday;
The solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord;
The feast of St. Stanislaus Papczynski (the founder of the Marian Fathers), May 18.
The feast of St. Cajetan (the founder of the Theatine Order), August 7.
*To gain a plenary indulgence, one must:
be in the state of grace and free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin;
have a general intention to gain the indulgence;
perform acts to obtain the indulgence;
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist;
pray for the intentions of the Holy Father"

Don't you find it at all odd that all this started in 1200 after the Latin church left the catholic (universal) communion of Christendom to form the RCC?

---

Blocking posters is for weak minded snowflakes. My experience with them is most have great difficulty defending their positions.

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

To be fair, he's not the only one. I think I have three, maybe four that have blocked me. And all I'm doing is challenging them on their positions, and firmly holding them to it when they try to avoid or dodge the point or play games. At that point, they call me "Pharisee", "authoritarian", "bully", etc or they concoct a lie or make it personal so they can redirect the attention away from their faulty arguments. It's been like clockwork. Yes, quite remarkable.

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

That's just bearing false witness. Unfortunately the search function only lets you go back one year.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

That's just bearing false witness.

---

So why are you blocking him then? Unable to refute his points?

You do this a lot. Throw out some b.s., and then run and hide when people point out your b.s. You're clearly in over your head on theological topics (among others), so it wouldn't surprise me at all if what he's saying is accurate.

But feel free to share your side.

As I said, people that block others are weak minded.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

That's just bearing false witness.

---

So why are you blocking him then? Unable to refute his points?

You do this a lot. Throw out some b.s., and then run and hide when people point out your b.s. You're clearly in over your head on theological topics (among others), so it wouldn't surprise me at all if what he's saying is accurate.

But feel free to share your side.

As I said, people that block others are weak minded.

---

He's the one person I've blocked on here. Like I said, at some point, it becomes pearls to swine. When someone is arrogant enough to pick up a Bible a couple of thousand years after the fact and declare that the founder of one of the first major heresies of the Christian faith was correct if they were in agreement, there's really nowhere to go from there.

We agree on very little, and yet I take the time to correct you.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

That's just bearing false witness.

---

So why are you blocking him then? Unable to refute his points?

You do this a lot. Throw out some b.s., and then run and hide when people point out your b.s. You're clearly in over your head on theological topics (among others), so it wouldn't surprise me at all if what he's saying is accurate.

But feel free to share your side.

As I said, people that block others are weak minded.

---

He's the one person I've blocked on here. Like I said, at some point, it becomes pearls to swine. When someone is arrogant enough to pick up a Bible a couple of thousand years after the fact and declare that the founder of one of the first major heresies of the Christian faith was correct if they were in agreement, there's really nowhere to go from there.

We agree on very little, and yet I take the time to correct you.

---

You lack self awareness, young one. You're an arrogant ass at times as well. The problem is, you're also not very learned, and are ignorant on a lot of issues, theology being one of them.

I suspect busty backed you into a corner on a theological issue, and unable to refute it, you blocked him. I've seen you do this on numerous issues. There's a long history there.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's exactly what happened. He couldn't answer my arguments, so he had to escape by concocting a lie over what I said as an excuse.

Please ask him to substantiate his claim that I said "If Arius agrees with me, then he is right". I've challenged him to point to exactly where that was said, but since he's "blocked" me, he is using that as an excuse to not have to.

---

Remarkable.

---

That's just bearing false witness. Unfortunately the search function only lets you go back one year.

---

You're lying again. Oh, the irony of you accusing me of false witness. The discussion occurred in July of 2025. Six months ago. The link is here: topics/123613/replies/4208519

The background of the discussion: I was arguing that "Mother of God" was an inappropriate title for Mary. You accused me of the Nestorian heresy, and I directly challenged you to define the heresy and then provide a quote or quotes of mine that you felt committed that heresy. Here was my comment where I issued the challenge:

"Either you don't understand what Nestorianism is, or you don't understand what's being said here. If you did, you'd been able to state what the heresy is, give a specific quote of mine, and show and explain how they are the same. But none of you have even been able to do it. None of you have even been able to isolate just ONE single sentence I've said that is false. Which brings up the question - if nothing I've said is false, and assuming I'm repeating the Nestorian heresy.... then why is Nestorianism even a heresy??"

It was at this point you checked out, failing to answer my challenge. It was the last sentence in my response above where you I presume you based your accusation that I said: "If Nestorius agreed with me, then Nestorius was right". But clearly, that is a total mischaracterization. It's just a lie you had to concoct in order to justify blocking me. What I clearly said was that if you're equating what I was saying to a heresy, but you can't even falsify what I was saying... then why do you believe it is a heresy?

I'm posting this knowing that you blocked me and therefore won't read it (ostensibly). It's for anyone who cared to know the nature of your indignation regarding what I said, to the point where you felt it justified "blocking" me. It is to show that you are a liar, and as Mothra correctly diagnoses, weak-minded.

RB is one of the better theological posters here.

It's easy to see your comment as saying Nestorianism is correct, but I can see what you mean now that you explain it. Interpretive issues are pesky, aren't they?