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:

---

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.

---

Yeah, running in circles is annoying, isn't 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:

---

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.

---

Yeah, running in circles is annoying, isn't it?

---

I guess you don't want to admit it, but you get the point. You've been twisting Catholic teaching into something it isn't.

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

Realitybites said:

---

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

---

You did suggest for Catholics that continual confession is, in your words, a book keeping exercise and an incorrect view of confession - a position I agree with.

I am curious if you're now walking that statement back?

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:

---

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.

---

Yeah, running in circles is annoying, isn't it?

---

I guess you don't want to admit it, but you get the point. You've been twisting Catholic teaching into something it isn't.

---

No, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

There is nothing I've said that misrepresents Roman Catholicism. You can't, when you're citing your very own catechisms, dogmas, popes, and Doctors of your church.

I do admit, however, that it is often hard to pin down what your church believes, because your church is like Teflon - once you proclaim a belief, and then get backed into a theological corner because of it, you're able to slip out of it with the usual double talk.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I guess you don't want to admit it, but you get the point. You've been twisting Catholic teaching into something it isn't.

---

https://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu51.htm

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

We don't believe that Christ was merely punished in our place. As true Man, He lived in perfect obedience, entered death unjustly, and destroyed death from within. His victory over sin and death was not the result of transferred guilt, but of conquering corruption through sinless obedience. He didn't deserve death because he was perfect and that provided the ability to defeat death and sin. Salvation is not simply the imputation of righteousness, but participation in Christ's life. We are united to Him in His death and resurrection. We die with Him so that we may live with Him.

The real question is not "Was that specific lie verbally repented?"
The real question is: "Was this person living in communion with Christ?"

Salvation is not a fragile legal status that collapses the moment a believer fails to complete a repentance transaction. A failure to repent of a particular sin before death is not the same thing as a failure of saving faith.

Walking in the light (1 John). Abiding in Christ (John 15). Living according to the Spirit (Romans 8): these are all relational. Repentance is not a ritual that keeps God from changing His mind. Repentance is the posture of a heart that belongs to Him.

God knows your heart.

Paul and James aren't contradicting each other.
Dead faith does not save, not because works replace grace, but because living faith is inherently faithful. Works are not an addition to faith. they are its expression.
Salvation is not a legal fiction. It is transformation through union with Christ.

*This varies from Catholicism*.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

We don't believe that Christ was merely punished in our place. As true Man, He lived in perfect obedience, entered death unjustly, and destroyed death from within. His victory over sin and death was not the result of transferred guilt, but of conquering corruption through sinless obedience. He didn't deserve death because he was perfect and that provided the ability to defeat death and sin. Salvation is not simply the imputation of righteousness, but participation in Christ's life. We are united to Him in His death and resurrection. We die with Him so that we may live with Him.

The real question is not "Was that specific lie verbally repented?"
The real question is: "Was this person living in communion with Christ?"

Salvation is not a fragile legal status that collapses the moment a believer fails to complete a repentance transaction. A failure to repent of a particular sin before death is not the same thing as a failure of saving faith.

Walking in the light (1 John). Abiding in Christ (John 15). Living according to the Spirit (Romans 8): these are all relational. Repentance is not a ritual that keeps God from changing His mind. Repentance is the posture of a heart that belongs to Him.

God knows your heart.

Paul and James aren't contradicting each other.
Dead faith does not save, not because works replace grace, but because living faith is inherently faithful. Works are not an addition to faith. they are its expression.
Salvation is not a legal fiction. It is transformation through union with Christ.

*This varies from Catholicism*.

---

A few things...

1) First, my question was not to you, but to a Catholic, based on a scenario he set up. Are you Catholic? If not, then I am not sure why you're answering the question. If I was curious what one of the Orthodox sects believes on the subject, I would have asked you. But I didn't. The premise and context of my question to Coke was based on one of his statements. Perhaps next time try to understand the context so it doesn't get you in trouble by making unwarranted assumptions.

2) I don't believe any of what you just attributed to me regarding salvation. You have a really bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions, and ascribing beliefs to people that they don't have. I think it likely stems from your prejudice against all things evangelical and/or protestant, or just blatant ignorance.

3) We agree salvation is not a fragile legal status and, quite frankly, on pretty much all the rest. That was kind of my point in response to Coke, just FYI. Shocking for you, I am sure, that a reformed partitioner believes just what you stated.

4) I think you might want to ask yourself why you are continuing to defend Catholic belief.

Catholics believe we're saved by grace, through faith, demonstrated by works. If the thief on the cross had lived longer, his works would have further demonstrated his faith. Simple as that, but you've spent all this time insisting we MUST believe something different. It's quite remarkable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Catholics believe we're saved by grace, through faith, demonstrated by works. If the thief on the cross had lived longer, his works would have further demonstrated his faith. Simple as that, but you've spent all this time insisting we MUST believe something different. It's quite remarkable.

---

Saved as long as you continue to engage in the sacraments consistently, and confess right before you die, because if not, Christ's grace won't save you.

Just gotta hope you die at the exact, right time.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Catholics believe we're saved by grace, through faith, demonstrated by works. If the thief on the cross had lived longer, his works would have further demonstrated his faith. Simple as that, but you've spent all this time insisting we MUST believe something different. It's quite remarkable.

---

I'm literally QUOTING you Roman Catholic sources that specifically state that you are ETERNALLY LOST TO HELL if you don't perform the sacraments.

Your denial of what's plain in front of us is what's remarkable.

Reasonable people understand Church teaching to mean that good works are necessary when possible. James 2:26 is understood the same way. Applying your logic to the Scripture, you would have to conclude that the thief's faith was dead since he never performed any works.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Reasonable people understand Church teaching to mean that good works are necessary when possible. James 2:26 is understood the same way. Applying your logic to the Scripture, you would have to conclude that the thief's faith was dead since he never performed any works.

---

No, that was YOUR conclusion. You are getting confused. Go back to where I said that the thief's faith was real, even though he had no works. To which you responded, "so the Bible is lying when it says 'faith without works is dead'?" YOU were the one using James to challenge the thief's faith being real. Now, you are going back on it by making my exact point - James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation. Yet, this verse is constantly used by Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy to argue that salvation is by faith plus works, i.e. sacraments.

And do you concede that the link I provided clearly shows that your church teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and that not doing them can lead to being eternally lost to Hell? You're charging me with mischaracterizing Roman Catholic teaching, correct? So how is this any different from what I've been saying?

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

pic.twitter.com/chBCNVsUNr

— David C☦️ (@Orthodavec) February 13, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Question: Are you saying that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation?

Answer: Yes. This is affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as follows:

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [Cf. Jn 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. [Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

[Cf. Mk 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." ...(C.C.C. # 1257)

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

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

---

You did suggest for Catholics that continual confession is, in your words, a book keeping exercise and an incorrect view of confession - a position I agree with.

I am curious if you're now walking that statement back?

---

My point was that in Orthodoxy, the sacrament of confession is not a book keeping exercise.

You don't go into a confessional, recite a list of sins, and receive a penitential invoice to pay for their forgiveness.

I would not presume to address the Latin church's position on that. Coke Bear can handle that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

That we're born guilty of sin is heretical. It's why Catholics believe in immaculate conception which is heresy and also why many reformed prots believe children are damned to hell. It's all heretical nonsense based on penal atonement.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear 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?

---

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.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

---

I do not mean that the Father poured out retributive wrath on the Son in a courtroom exchange, as though God needed to punish someone in order to forgive.

I mean that the consequence of sin (death, corruption, and alienation) is what Christ entered into voluntarily. He bore the full reality of our fallen condition, including death itself, and destroyed it through His resurrection.

The cross is not God punishing Jesus instead of us.
It is God in Christ entering our death to defeat it from within.

We don't have an angry volcano God.
Gold loves us.

Mothra said:

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

---

No one is going to hell for telling a lie unless that lie was of grave nature. A "believer" who commits an unrepentant MORTAL sin before death would go to hell.

(Mortal) sin separates us from God. We choose to commit these. We separate ourselves from God. The point of the prodigal son parable is that the father (God) forgives his son (a "believer" who rejected Him) and welcomes him back home to the feast (Heaven).

The son is repentant and seeks forgiveness. The father RUNS out to meet him.

Mortal sin has three conditions:

Grave in nature
Full knowledge to know it's grave
Deliberate consent

If a "believer" commits a mortal sin, say murder, adultery, fornication, etc. and dies before they repent, they have separated themselves from God. They choose to reject what God wants for them.

Mothra said:

---

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

Please forgive me. I still know understand what "work" that you are speaking about. Please specify a "work" that you are speaking about.

Once one is saved, all they are required to do is NOT commit a mortal sin to remain in sanctify grace an enter into heaven.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

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

---

You did suggest for Catholics that continual confession is, in your words, a book keeping exercise and an incorrect view of confession - a position I agree with.

I am curious if you're now walking that statement back?

---

My point was that in Orthodoxy, the sacrament of confession is not a book keeping exercise.

You don't go into a confessional, recite a list of sins, and receive a penitential invoice to pay for their forgiveness.

I would not presume to address the Latin church's position on that. Coke Bear can handle that.

---

I feel that is it disanalogous an unfair mischaracterization to refer to the Confession as a book-keeping exercise.

While I don't doubt that some people may treat it as such, it is not how the Church calls us to repent.

One is to perform a sincere examination of conscience, have a contrite heart, confess their sins, receive absolution, and perform an act of penance (if the priest gives a penance to perform.)

PS. Thank you for using the term "Latin" opposed to "Roman"; however, after a quick bit of research, all of the rites in the Church have the same tenants.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.