Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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/

---

I would say that most people who are married don't wake up every morning wondering if this is the day that their spouse is going to divorce them.

I would also say that there are too many people who are concerned about "doubts whether you are going to heaven."

In the end, you aren't the one who decides if you get into heaven. Walking an aisle and saying an incantation doesn't change this. Christianity isn't fire insurance.

Be the best disciple you can be, serve Jesus as best as you can, and know that he is the righteous judge and your fate is in His hands, not yours. By grace, through faith, evidenced by works.

---

You just gave people advice to get into hell. Be the best disciple you can be does not get you into heaven. Everyone should be concerned about whether they're going to heaven or not. Yes your fate is in His hands which is why you need to do it his way. This thread is based upon doing it the way that the Bible says not the way that anyone else says. Grace is when God does something for you that you cannot do for yourself. We access God's Saving Grace through our faith in Him and the sacrifice that Jesus performed for us dying and rising from the dead shedding his blood for our sins.

When I fall into sin or recognize a sinful passion, I don't treat it as irrelevant to my relationship with God, and I don't assume my status before Him makes repentance optional.
I freely turn to God in repentance, asking for mercy and strength, and actively fight the sin by relying on His grace. I do this not to earn forgiveness, but because sin is incompatible with communion with God and Scripture commands believers to put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). My struggle does not replace grace, it presupposes it. I fight precisely because God is at work in me, and I refuse to receive that grace in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1).

I don't measure my faith by whether I struggle, but by whether I refuse to make peace with sin, because Scripture teaches that living faith repents, resists, and relies on God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

When I fall into sin or recognize a sinful passion, I don't treat it as irrelevant to my relationship with God, and I don't assume my status before Him makes repentance optional.
I freely turn to God in repentance, asking for mercy and strength, and actively fight the sin by relying on His grace. I do this not to earn forgiveness, but because sin is incompatible with communion with God and Scripture commands believers to put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). My struggle does not replace grace, it presupposes it. I fight precisely because God is at work in me, and I refuse to receive that grace in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1).

I don't measure my faith by whether I struggle, but by whether I refuse to make peace with sin, because Scripture teaches that living faith repents, resists, and relies on God.

---

Notice how you said absolutely nothing here about Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

When I fall into sin or recognize a sinful passion, I don't treat it as irrelevant to my relationship with God, and I don't assume my status before Him makes repentance optional.
I freely turn to God in repentance, asking for mercy and strength, and actively fight the sin by relying on His grace. I do this not to earn forgiveness, but because sin is incompatible with communion with God and Scripture commands believers to put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). My struggle does not replace grace, it presupposes it. I fight precisely because God is at work in me, and I refuse to receive that grace in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1).

I don't measure my faith by whether I struggle, but by whether I refuse to make peace with sin, because Scripture teaches that living faith repents, resists, and relies on God.

---

Notice how you said absolutely nothing here about Jesus.

---

Jesus is God.

My post is about relying on His grace, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit and God working within me. Do you have a problem with that?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

When I fall into sin or recognize a sinful passion, I don't treat it as irrelevant to my relationship with God, and I don't assume my status before Him makes repentance optional.
I freely turn to God in repentance, asking for mercy and strength, and actively fight the sin by relying on His grace. I do this not to earn forgiveness, but because sin is incompatible with communion with God and Scripture commands believers to put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). My struggle does not replace grace, it presupposes it. I fight precisely because God is at work in me, and I refuse to receive that grace in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1).

I don't measure my faith by whether I struggle, but by whether I refuse to make peace with sin, because Scripture teaches that living faith repents, resists, and relies on God.

---

Notice how you said absolutely nothing here about Jesus.

---

Jesus is God.

My post is about relying on His grace, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit and God working within me. Do you have a problem with that?

---

The omission is significant. Earlier in this thread, or maybe in another, an Orthodox christian posted a long prayer of salvation - and there was absolutely NO mention of Jesus either.

Jesus is the whole reason we're even able to receive grace from God, and the whole reason we're able to live by the Spirit and have God working within us. He sure does deserve mention by name.

I really think his name's omission really reflects on how Orthodoxy has no problem whatsoever in crediting Mary for their salvation in their liturgy. Giving Jesus his full due does not seem to be of high importance.

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

Joshua 24:15 KJV
[15] And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Who suggested salvation is a mere recitation of a prayer? No one.

Your orthodox guys are funny. You might want to read Acts. This is the kind of things that the apostles preached regularly and many repented and were saved.

---

It depends if the prayer is mixed with faith. If truly prayed in faith then yes. If the person praying it doesn't really believe what they are praying then no. Read Romans 10 9 10 to 13. That is exactly what the prayer does.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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/

---

I would say that most people who are married don't wake up every morning wondering if this is the day that their spouse is going to divorce them.

I would also say that there are too many people who are concerned about "doubts whether you are going to heaven."

In the end, you aren't the one who decides if you get into heaven. Walking an aisle and saying an incantation doesn't change this. Christianity isn't fire insurance.

Be the best disciple you can be, serve Jesus as best as you can, and know that he is the righteous judge and your fate is in His hands, not yours. By grace, through faith, evidenced by works.

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology. The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Who suggested salvation is a mere recitation of a prayer? No one.

Your orthodox guys are funny. You might want to read Acts. This is the kind of things that the apostles preached regularly and many repented and were saved.

---

It depends if the prayer is mixed with faith. If truly prayed in faith then yes. If the person praying it doesn't really believe what they are praying then no. Read Romans 10 9 10 to 13. That is exactly what the prayer does.

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

Quote:

---

Be the best disciple you can be does not get you into heaven.

---

I never said that it did.

Faith gets you into heaven.

Being the best disciple you can be is the the result of that faith.

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

I can't speak for Coke Bear, but in my understanding the use of the Sacrament of Confession as a book keeping exercise is incorrect. Particularly for those of us who come to the Church later in life, we've probably committed more sins than we can even remember.

It is more of a tool to reconcile us to God, to confront those sins that we do remember, and assist us in reforming our lives as we move forward in a more concrete and objective way than the simple casual assumption that "Yeah, He's got this covered."

Think Genesis 5:22-24.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

---

With respect to dying in an accident on my way to confession, I would be at the mercy of Jesus. Having said that, if I died with a truly repentant heart, the Church teaches that I would receive salvation. I had already repented of my sin and was on my way to confession. We don't see God as a legalist deity that demands a strict adherence to a set of rules or face punishment.

To flesh out your first sentence, the Church views the following passages that we should repent and confess our sins:

Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Of course, this is predicated on the believe that Catholics hold that one can lose salvation.

Lastly (on this), Purgatory is only for those who die in God's friendship (i.e. no mortal sin on their soul), but still have an attachment to sin when they die. This is a topic for another day (or thread.)

Mothra said:

---

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

One doesn't have to confess their sins immediately before we pass. We simply need to confess and not have a mortal sin on our conscience. Having said that, this is why the Church offers Last Rites (the sacraments and prayers offered to those nearly death. It three sacraments of Penance (confession), Anointing of the Sick, and Viaticum "food for the journey" which is a very small piece of the Eucharist. In addition to this it is prayers and blessing for the dying, the family, and caregivers.

Mothra said:

---

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

---

I overstepped my bounds here. I'll, respectively, let him speak to that topic. I can only try my best to present the Catholic Church standpoint on salvation. I hope that I was able to represent the Catholic viewpoint clearly and accurately for you to understand. You may not agree with it, but I trust that I was able to present it properly.

Mothra said:

---

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

Please provide an example so that we can better discuss your belief.

I'm not sure if we are talking about different but intertwined concepts here. For the sake of clarity (please don't mistake this with condescension), I'll use the terms Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification.

Justification the initial grace by which a person is made righteous in the sight of God. It involves that forgiveness of sins and the imputation of God's righteousness, aligning us with God's will. It occurs when we first come to faith and is often associated with the sacrament of Baptism.

Salvation the ultimate goal of eternal life with God. It is a gift offered by God which we accept through faith and cooperation with grace.

Sanctification the process by which a justified person is made holy through the work of the Holy Spirit. It involves A continual growth in holiness and conformity to the likeness of Christ throughout one's life. This process includes the practice of virtue, reception of the sacraments, prayer, and cooperation with divine grace.

I'm happy to discuss any of these terms or use other terms of your choose with definition.

PS. Let me add Original Sin the Catholic Church teaches that we are born with this. It is not necessarily something that we have but something we lack. Due to the fall of our first parents, we lack - sanctifying grace. We have a God-size hole in our hearts. Baptism washes away original sin through it, God gives us sanctifying grace.

Realitybites said:

---

I can't speak for Coke Bear, but in my understanding the use of the Sacrament of Confession as a book keeping exercise is incorrect. Particularly for those of us who come to the Church later in life, we've probably committed more sins than we can even remember.

---

Please state where I stated or even implied that Confession is "a book-keeping exercise."

First, Baptism washes away ALL sin - both Original sin and any sin committed prior to baptism.

Second, if one has not gone to confession in decades, years, months, days, or even minutes, they are only required to state the number and kind of their sins.

For instance, a person that has 25+ years on their conscience only need to confess the sins they committed and how many times. One could say, "I committed the sin of detraction and calumny more times than I can count. " Or, "I committed adultery three times since my last confession."

Finally, I apologize for attempting to clarify for you. I will not do that again. Mea Culpa.

Please kindly refrain from summarizing my posts with incorrect arguments.

I didn't say you did. That's why I said I can't speak for you or your church's view of confession.

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

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

I can't speak for Coke Bear, but in my understanding the use of the Sacrament of Confession as a book keeping exercise is incorrect. Particularly for those of us who come to the Church later in life, we've probably committed more sins than we can even remember.

It is more of a tool to reconcile us to God, to confront those sins that we do remember, and assist us in reforming our lives as we move forward in a more concrete and objective way than the simple casual assumption that "Yeah, He's got this covered."

Think Genesis 5:22-24.

---

We agree on this. Well said.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Yup.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

I can't speak for Coke Bear, but in my understanding the use of the Sacrament of Confession as a book keeping exercise is incorrect. Particularly for those of us who come to the Church later in life, we've probably committed more sins than we can even remember.

It is more of a tool to reconcile us to God, to confront those sins that we do remember, and assist us in reforming our lives as we move forward in a more concrete and objective way than the simple casual assumption that "Yeah, He's got this covered."

Think Genesis 5:22-24.

---

Yeah its also kind of like therapy, at least in Orthodoxy.

You confess your sins and the priest will help guide you toward cooperation with Christ. Its kind of like guiding you to actual repentance. Repentance being the understanding of your sin, having humility, but also the action/effort of conquering it through Christ.

Many of us are slaves to specific passions and if we stay consistent and violent toward those sins, we can defeat them. It's amazing for drug addiction, porn addiction, anger, ego, vanity, etc.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

---

Well, which is it? Is faith without works alive or dead?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

---

Well, which is it? Is faith without works alive or dead?

---

Didn't you just say you've already answered it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

---

Well, which is it? Is faith without works alive or dead?

---

Didn't you just say you've already answered it?

---

Yep. Your turn.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

---

Well, which is it? Is faith without works alive or dead?

---

Didn't you just say you've already answered it?

---

Yep. Your turn.

---

You said your answer was in agreement with mine.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that was can't have some assurance of our salvation is just bad theology.

---

It depends on what you mean by assurance. The Catholic Church speaks of moral and absolute assurance of salvation.

The difference being that in Moral Assurance, for example, I just went to confession last night. I should have no mortal sin on my soul. If I was to die shortly after posting this, I should go to heaven.

Absolute Assurance implies a complete and infallible certainty, leaving NO room for doubt. This is only revealed to extremely rare cases where it is revealed by divine revelation, such as private revelation granted to some saints.

Mothra said:

---

The idea that we just have to hope we've done enough, and were good enough, is not only depressing, but unbiblical.

---

I believe that you are misunderstanding his point or y'all may be talking past one another here.

The Church does NOT teach that one can "do enough" be " good enough" to merit salvation.

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

He/she threw in "meriting salvation" as an escape. They will say that your works don't "merit" your salvation, but they still are required to "keep" or "stay on track with" your salvation, or to "participate" in the grace you receive, without which you can't receive grace - which ultimately means there's no practical difference. You have to understand their double talk.

You are correct about the Orthodox - they definitely believe that works are required to "participate" in grace in order to receive grace and be saved, and that you can't have assurance, you can only "hope" you've done enough.

---

Help me understand your double talk. What is the difference between saying works are required and saying faith without works isn't real?

---

The difference is what saves you - your faith, or your faith plus your works. And I do not believe that "faith without works isn't real" - a person who believes and then dies shortly after will not have works, but has a real faith that saves (like the thief on the cross). They might even have sinned before they died without consciously repenting. However, according to the faith-plus-works crowd, there are specific works (sacraments) that must be performed in order to receive grace. The REAL double talk is when this crowd says that these sacraments are necessary.... but then also say it's unnecessary.

---

So the Bible is lying when it says faith without works is dead?

---

You tell me. Do you believe that someone who truly believes, but dies soon after before being able to show works or perform water baptism or the Eucharist, that this person's faith was "dead" and therefore they are in Hell?

---

I've told you what I believe. You rejected it as double-talk. I'm asking what you believe.

---

Well, when you say something is "necessary", and then in the same breath say it's NOT necessary, what else is that except double talk?

I believe the person in my scenario is saved, just like the thief on the cross was. So obviously, that verse in James you are referring to doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you're church tries to make it mean.

---

My Church believes the same thing that you do. Why is it only double-talk when we say it?

---

Because "necessary... not necessary". That should be obvious, but it's you I'm talking to, so there it is.

---

Well, which is it? Is faith without works alive or dead?

---

Didn't you just say you've already answered it?

---

Yep. Your turn.

---

You said your answer was in agreement with mine.

---

And I asked why double-talk, you said necessary not necessary, which led to my question. Stop running in circles and let's have an answer.