Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It means that it's GOD that decides on and gives the canon, NOT man. This is your misconception. Man does not have the "authority" to "decide" the canon. The canon exists before man recognizes it or knows it's there. Their responsibility is to recognize it correctly and receive it. ......How do you know this?

---

It's known because it's a logical truth based on what is a true, agreed upon principle, that a writing is the word of God the moment it's written, not because man declares it to be.

The only way you can say it's NOT known, is to say that a writing can become the word of God simply by man's word, thereby putting man above God. And that is utter blasphemy.

---

Ok, I get the logic, but who says that a particular writing was the word of God at its beginning? To me, that's still a human decision.

---

rather is based on the unbroken chain of witness that started way back with the very first Christians who were able to verify first hand the authenticity of the writings as being from the apostles.

---

How does one prove 'Unbroken chain of witnesses'? There is the concept of the kerygma, and then
there are the copies of the copies. How does one prove each of those copies of copies is the same? When confronted with variants copists had to choose or change.

---

You're talking about the reliability of the text, not the authenticity. The unbroken chain of witness regarding the authenticity of the writings is preserved by testimony from one generation to the next, and by its widespread use and acceptance among the church. The reliability of the text, which is what you're referring to, is proven not only by this same chain of testimony, but also by the scientific method of textual criticism.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, we've been over this, so at the risk of repeating myself...

With respect to John 3:5, we undoubtedly agree that entering God's Kingdom requires a spiritual transformation, i.e. a new birth, symbolized by cleansing (water) and renewal (Spirit) by God which indicates a fundamental inner change brought about by the Holy Spirit. In other words, there is a single spiritual rebirth, where "water and the Spirit" describe two aspects of the same divine work of regeneration. Throughout scripture, water often symbolizes purification from sin, while the "Spirit" signifies the new life God imparts. In short, water in this verse is a metaphor for God's Word or the Holy Spirit's work - again, a metaphor used repeatedly in both NT and Old.

---

This makes NO sense. Essentially, you are stating that Jesus said, "Unless you are born again of Spirit and Spirit." That completely redundant and illogical.

Acts 22:16 shows that Paul was to be baptized with water

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

The Greek in this verse is "baptizo", which means "immerse, dip, or wash with water."

Mothra said:

---

Notice what John 3:5 doesn't say, even though it could. Christ doesn't say, "Unless one is baptized of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God," despite his use of the term "baptism" on several occasions, including in Matt 16:16. Indeed, that is because Christ is very clear that is it by faith alone we are saved. See John 3:16; 6:40. And then of course, we have the thief on the cross, who of course disproves your entire narrative.

---

The only time the Bible uses the phrase "Faith only" in in James when he states that we are "NOT saved by faith alone."

Mothra said:

---

As for Mark 16:16, let's take a closer look at the entire verse, and not just the first part you quoted. The entire verse reads: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever disbelieves will be condemned." Interestingly, Christ doesn't mention baptism in the latter half of the verse when he speaks of condemnation, does he? He once again merely refers to faith or rather lack thereof (i.e. disbelief).

And of course, there is so much other NT scripture that talks about salvation without mentioning baptism:

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

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

---

These are all amazing verses that the Catholic Church 100% believes in them, in the context of the whole.

Matthew 7:21 says

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Doing the will of God is having an active faith, being baptized, not sinning, and partaking in the Eucharist.

Mothra said:

---

But putting all that aside for a moment, I again go back to the fact that while scripture has repeatedly told us how we can be saved, not a single verse in scripture states that baptism is necessary for salvation. None of these verses you quoted, and no other verses. And once again, therein lies the problem with the Catholic position on the subject. There is no legitimate, intellectually honest "interpretation" that deems water baptism as necessary for salvation.

---

1 Peter 3:15 clearly states

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter tells us outright that Baptism is salvific. We know that he wants us to use water and it's not just the spirit, because, like Noah, who was saved thru water, we, too, will be saved by that water when baptized in Jesus' name.


Let's take a brief look at history with a few of the Church fathers '

"'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd4:3:12 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Justin Martyr believes that the "water" in John 3 is water, NOT the spirit.

I can list a dozen other Church Fathers in history that posit the same view.

---

I am not terribly interested in what some of the Church Fathers believed but what scripture DOESN'T say

---

Ah, that explains it!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just as I said - complete, non sequitur eisegetic nonsense.

---

No, unfortunately, it is your inability to understand typology. That's what happens when you make up your own religion and don't learn from the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is nothing that says the woman in Revelation is Mary. It is highly symbolic imagery, not a real person. And even if it were, clearly she is feeling pain at childbirth which means she had sin, which goes against your belief in her sinlessness. So you're defeating your own beliefs. And also, even if that were Mary, there is nothing there that suggests she was "assumed" bodily into heaven eiher, only that she is IN heaven, like all believers are.

---

Every Catholic should agree that the imagery in Revelation is polyvalent. Having said that several Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius, Andrew of Caesarea, Augustine, and Irenaeus see Mary as the woman in Revelation. This belief was long before the so-called reformers rebelled from Christ's Church.

Please check your Bible again in Gen 3:16

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children,"

It never said that the pain wasn't there before. Also, one could argue that any woman after the fall would have pains in birth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is nothing that says the ark is Mary. And EVEN if your distorted mind says that it is, still, nothing there suggests she was assumed bodily into heaven, but only that she is IN heaven.

---

Luke goes to great lengths in his first chapter to identify Mary as the new Ark. I know that I and others have covered this many times before. The correlation between Luke and Samuel are nearly word for word.

Well, Rev clearly shows her BODY in the heavens. Also, we have NO relics of Mary. The Church has relics of ALL of the apostles and Mary Magdalene, but none for Mary, the most holy human person ever.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The serpent was not something they bowed and prayed to, as if it were a "window" to God. It was a prefigurement of Jesus. Now that Jesus has come, there is no instruction or reference whatsoever in all of the New Testament for Christians to do this. There is not a single instance of Jesus' church using pictures and images of himself or departed believers as part of prayer and worship. And in fact, it was the unanimous consensus among the early church fathers that icon veneration was forbidden.

---

First your quote is an ALL OUT LIE. I apologize for being so blunt. Many of your post state falsehoods and they are placed in BOLD. They need to be called out and refuted. Very few mentioned Icon Veneration. Those that did oppose it was because a variety of reason such as keeping Christianity away from paganism, keeping the focus on the intellectual (not the sensory), some with an outright refusal.

I fully understand why this practice existed as the Church was battling paganism and always many had come from a Jewish background. But as time progressed, people realized that they is nothing in the bible that says you can't make images. God commanded the Hebrews to make the bronze serpent, cherubim, and all the decorations in the Temple. He forbade the worshipping of them AS a god.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And how many times are you going to repeat your failed argument about "scripture must prove scripture" in order for sola scriptura to be correct? Can you really not understand the logical flaw in that? Or that sola scriptura doesn't exist before scripture does? I'm literally talking to a wall.

---

Sola Scriptura didn't exist until the 16th century. Your only "success" in trying to find a Church father that believed in was using St Augustine out of context and I demonstrated that your claim was pulling one passage OUT OF CONTEXT (again) and that he did not believe in such a thing.

The Hebrews did NOT believe in SS. They believed in Written Torah and the Oral Torah, which includes interpretations and teaching that have been passed down through generations.
The Hebrews had a three-fold priest structure and so does the Church today.
The Hebrews prayed for the dead (2 Mac) and so does the Church today.
The Jews have a Red Lamp (Ner Talmid) in their synagogue symbolizing God's perpetual presence and the Catholic Church as a red candle called the Sanctuary Lamp which signifies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle.
The Tabernacle in Catholic Churches is similar to the original Ark of the Covenant and later the Temple is being where God's glory resided.
And most importantly, the Catholic Church celebrates the Eucharist at EVERY mass EVERYDAY of the year (except Good Friday), just as Jesus TOLD us to do as the fulfillment of the Last Supper, which was the Passover meal that the Jews celebrated every year for the previous 1300 years.

Catholicism (aka the OG Christianity) a fulfillment of Judaism. Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Today's evangelicals have completely abolished what God created so that they can worship how THEY want and not what God wants. This is just like Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, who offered "unauthorized fire" which he had not commanded them to do. They paid the price for their disobedience.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Like I've already said, someone HAS told us what scripture is - Jesus. We believe him through faith. Jesus only gave his stamp of approval on the Tanakh and the words of the apostles. There is no "authority" that decides what the apostles wrote. The knowledge of what they wrote was known first hand by the first century Christians, which they passed down through testimony. The "authorities" were only essential in their preservation of that testimony. And it's obvious that this process was NOT infallible, as even Roman Catholic history reveals, given that the Council of Trent contradicted it's own previous councils, and even anathematized their rulings on the canon. None of you seem to want to deal with this fact. It's pretty obvious why.

---

You AGAIN are stretching Luke 24:44-45. He doesn't use Tanakh. He says the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms." He does say the Writings. Even if that is included, the NT was written for at least 20 years after his death. He was NOT talking about it. He was stating that HE is the fulfillment of those scriptures. It is not a proof text for what the scriptures are.

Mark wasn't an apostle, and we don't know who wrote Hebrews. Someone had to decide whether they were canon. That someone was the Catholic Church. Not some nebulous body of believers.

Please cite the anathema that "anathematized their rulings on the canon." The only canon that I can locate that even come close to what you are claiming is the following:

If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the books as they have been read in the Catholic Church and contained in the Latin Vulgate edition, and knowingly condemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

That doesn't sound like it says the old Canons are anathematized. I really don't understand your weak point.

To the original point, sola scriptura is false because:

• Bible does NOT teach it
• The Church (guided by the Holy Spirit discerned and declared the canon of Scripture
• Sacred Tradition passed down through apostolic succession, provides the context and correct interpretation of scripture
• Sola Scriptura arose only during the protestant "reformation"
• Without an authoritative interpretive body, SS leads to various interpretations resulting in doctrinal confusion

So I ask you, is the Bible the foundation of Truth?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

---

Please enlighten me as to which verse he was referring.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

---

No, i saw them (for nearly the hundredth time). No one is required to use those titles. She is the greatest human person to walk the earth. She is the Mother of God. If people, out of profound reverence, want to give her a title, I have no issue with it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

---

You live in a world of absolutes that is ONE of your main issues.

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

Yes, once one is baptized in the Catholic Church, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist and they should, as long as they are in the state of grace.

One of the five precepts of the Catholic Church is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season.

The Church is ONLY doing what Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, when you make up your own religion, you make up what YOU want to do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I fully believe that if the real Mary knew what all you Roman Catholics were doing for her, she would feel it is doing her the greatest dishonor imaginable.

---

Your belief is incorrect.

She has appeared to thousands in apparitions that have been documented throughout history. Those apparitions all have approved healing miracles associated with them.

I know your default position on this is that it was a demon or the devil, himself, that is fooling believers; however, the devil cannot heal someone permanently.

Those apparitions have led to the conversions of millions of pagans to Christ. That's not the work of the devil.

Finally, Jesus doesn't get upset when we honor his mother. I believe it makes him happy!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I fully believe that if the real Mary knew what all you Roman Catholics were doing for her, she would feel it is doing her the greatest dishonor imaginable.

---

Your belief is incorrect.

She has appeared to thousands in apparitions that have been documented throughout history. Those apparitions all have approved healing miracles associated with them.

I know your default position on this is that it was a demon or the devil, himself, that is fooling believers; however, the devil cannot heal someone permanently.

Those apparitions have led to the conversions of millions of pagans to Christ. That's not the work of the devil.

Finally, Jesus doesn't get upset when we honor his mother. I believe it makes him happy!

---

There literally is no verifiable evidence of anything you just said.

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

---

Please enlighten me as to which verse he was referring.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

---

No, i saw them (for nearly the hundredth time). No one is required to use those titles. She is the greatest human person to walk the earth. She is the Mother of God. If people, out of profound reverence, want to give her a title, I have no issue with it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

---

You live in a world of absolutes that is ONE of your main issues.

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

Yes, once one is baptized in the Catholic Church, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist and they should, as long as they are in the state of grace.

One of the five precepts of the Catholic Church is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season.

The Church is ONLY doing what Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, when you make up your own religion, you make up what YOU want to do.

---

Yes and we should not be asking "what's the least I can do to get to heaven?".

Nominalism wasn't a thing in the time of the apostles or early church. The reformers were hellbent on legalizing Christianity. This is part of the reason why they murdered each other.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

---

Please enlighten me as to which verse he was referring.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

---

No, i saw them (for nearly the hundredth time). No one is required to use those titles. She is the greatest human person to walk the earth. She is the Mother of God. If people, out of profound reverence, want to give her a title, I have no issue with it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

---

You live in a world of absolutes that is ONE of your main issues.

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

Yes, once one is baptized in the Catholic Church, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist and they should, as long as they are in the state of grace.

One of the five precepts of the Catholic Church is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season.

The Church is ONLY doing what Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, when you make up your own religion, you make up what YOU want to do.

---

Yes and we should not be asking "what's the least I can do to get to heaven?".

Nominalism wasn't a thing in the time of the apostles or early church. The reformers were hellbent on legalizing Christianity. This is part of the reason why they murdered each other.

---

I am unaware of any Christian who asks that question. You seem to have invented an issue that does not exist.

Mothra said:

---

Luke doesn't say to give her honor. And he certainly doesn't say to honor her in a manner that is consistent with how we honor God, as other posters have suggested.

---

Where does the bible say that it is wrong to give her honor?

Abraham is given honor. Gaberiel gives Mary honor. St Paul tells us to honor those in authority. We are also called to honor our father and mother.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Luke doesn't say to give her honor. And he certainly doesn't say to honor her in a manner that is consistent with how we honor God, as other posters have suggested.

---

Where does the bible say that it is wrong to give her honor?

Abraham is given honor. Gaberiel gives Mary honor. St Paul tells us to honor those in authority. We are also called to honor our father and mother.

---

Depends on what you mean by honor. Recognizing that she is blessed in history, and praying to her or giving her honor on the same level of Christ, as your buddy Freedom Bear suggests, isn't biblical.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

---

Please enlighten me as to which verse he was referring.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

---

No, i saw them (for nearly the hundredth time). No one is required to use those titles. She is the greatest human person to walk the earth. She is the Mother of God. If people, out of profound reverence, want to give her a title, I have no issue with it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

---

You live in a world of absolutes that is ONE of your main issues.

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

Yes, once one is baptized in the Catholic Church, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist and they should, as long as they are in the state of grace.

One of the five precepts of the Catholic Church is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season.

The Church is ONLY doing what Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, when you make up your own religion, you make up what YOU want to do.

---

Yes and we should not be asking "what's the least I can do to get to heaven?".

Nominalism wasn't a thing in the time of the apostles or early church. The reformers were hellbent on legalizing Christianity. This is part of the reason why they murdered each other.

---

I am unaware of any Christian who asks that question. You seem to have invented an issue that does not exist.

---

It's the natural progression of a legalist framework and sola fide.

I already know you're going to disagree and you're not open to questioning your theology, but here's my understanding:

If I asked your question about the deathbed situation, I would be assuming a legalist framework: like God is enforcing a checklist and occasionally "waiving requirements." That paradigm doesn't jive with scripture. It turns salvation into "what's the least I can do to get into heaven?"

Christianity isn't about minimum compliance. There are normative means of salvation (baptism, Eucharist, life in the Church), not because God needs rituals, but because that's how Christ normally gives Himself to us. I'm not even claiming you can't be saved on your deathbed first turning to Christ, you likely can be, but that doesn't mean that now becomes the lowest standard or legalized format.

If someone truly turns to Christ on their deathbed but physically can't receive the sacraments, God isn't "waiving rules." God isn't bound by the sacraments, we are. They're for our healing, not His bookkeeping. Using deathbed exceptions to justify a sacrament minimal Christianity is backwards. It's like saying food and oxygen don't matter because someone survived an emergency without them.

I know you probably think sacraments are pagan nonsense, but they actually discipline people. They keep you accountable.
You can't just walk up and take the Eucharist whenever you want. If you've fallen into serious sin, you're expected to confess first. That means actually talking to a priest about what's going on, being honest about your heart, and the priest working through how to realign yourself with God's will.
That process forces self examination, repentance, and cooperation with grace. It's not about earning salvation, it's about being formed. You're not asking "am I technically saved?" You're asking "am I living in communion with Christ?"

The issue isn't whether God can save without the sacraments. Why are we trying to build a Christianity where nothing is embodied, nothing is sacramental, and nothing is required?

In my paradigm, God isn't negotiating terms. He's offering union. The world at the time of Jesus and the apostles even up to the 1500s was relational, communal, and embodied. To "believe" meant loyalty, trust, and lived allegiance. To be "saved" meant being brought into a new way of life.

If someone believes and says "Jesus is Lord," can they live like demons, stay unrepentant, and do whatever they want, and still be saved? Obviously not or we'd be arguing in favor of antinomianism or once saved, always saved. So behavior clearly matters and separating faith from works doesn't make sense. If the response to this is "then they weren't really true believers", that argument is bringing works/behavior back into the equation. Directing your heart toward Him is a lifelong commitment and takes our willpower.

At no point do we lose free will or willpower. Repentance and obedience actually require choosing to cooperate with grace.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

---

Please enlighten me as to which verse he was referring.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

---

No, i saw them (for nearly the hundredth time). No one is required to use those titles. She is the greatest human person to walk the earth. She is the Mother of God. If people, out of profound reverence, want to give her a title, I have no issue with it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

---

You live in a world of absolutes that is ONE of your main issues.

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

Yes, once one is baptized in the Catholic Church, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist and they should, as long as they are in the state of grace.

One of the five precepts of the Catholic Church is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season.

The Church is ONLY doing what Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, when you make up your own religion, you make up what YOU want to do.

---

Yes and we should not be asking "what's the least I can do to get to heaven?".

Nominalism wasn't a thing in the time of the apostles or early church. The reformers were hellbent on legalizing Christianity. This is part of the reason why they murdered each other.

---

I am unaware of any Christian who asks that question. You seem to have invented an issue that does not exist.

---

It's the natural progression of a legalist framework and sola fide.

I already know you're going to disagree and you're not open to questioning your theology, but here's my understanding:

If I asked your question about the deathbed situation, I would be assuming a legalist framework: like God is enforcing a checklist and occasionally "waiving requirements." That paradigm doesn't jive with scripture. It turns salvation into "what's the least I can do to get into heaven?"

Christianity isn't about minimum compliance. There are normative means of salvation (baptism, Eucharist, life in the Church), not because God needs rituals, but because that's how Christ normally gives Himself to us.

If someone truly turns to Christ on their deathbed but physically can't receive the sacraments, God isn't "waiving rules." God isn't bound by the sacraments, we are. They're for our healing, not His bookkeeping. Using deathbed exceptions to justify a sacrament minimal Christianity is backwards. It's like saying food and oxygen don't matter because someone survived an emergency without them.

I know you probably think sacraments are pagan nonsense, but they actually discipline people. They keep you accountable.
You can't just walk up and take the Eucharist whenever you want. If you've fallen into serious sin, you're expected to confess first. That means actually talking to a priest about what's going on, being honest about your heart, and the priest working through how to realign yourself with God's will.
That process forces self examination, repentance, and cooperation with grace. It's not about earning salvation, it's about being formed. You're not asking "am I technically saved?" You're asking "am I living in communion with Christ?"

The issue isn't whether God can save without the sacraments. Why are we trying to build a Christianity where nothing is embodied, nothing is sacramental, and nothing is required?

In my paradigm, God isn't negotiating terms. He's offering union. The world at the time of Jesus and the apostles even up to the 1500s was relational, communal, and embodied. To "believe" meant loyalty, trust, and lived allegiance. To be "saved" meant being brought into a new way of life.

If someone believes and says "Jesus is Lord," can they live like demons, stay unrepentant, and do whatever they want, and still be saved? Obviously not or we'd be arguing in favor of antinomianism or once saved, always saved. So behavior clearly matters and separating faith from works doesn't make sense. If the response to this is "then they weren't really true believers", that argument is bringing works/behavior back into the equation. Directing your heart toward Him is a lifelong commitment and takes our willpower.

At no point do we lose free will or willpower. Repentance and obedience actually require choosing to cooperate with grace.

---

I suspected this was a strawman attempting to encapsulate Protestant belief. Thanks for confirming.

Sorry, but there's nothing natural about your progression. You've made some logical leaps because you misunderstand some Protestant's views on grace and works. I'd submit it's you with the closed mind, and this is you projecting.

As for the deathbed situation, so there are requirements for humanity, as you call them, but God can overlook those requirements, in certain situations which are unknown to us? So, there's a chance that the man with a true deathbed conversion may go to Hell because he didn't get dunked, despite actually having his heart changed and the Holy Spirit present in him. Or God may say he doesn't need to fulfill these particular requirements for humanity. Just all depends on how God is feeling that day?

Mothra said:

---

There literally is no verifiable evidence of anything you just said.

---

Our Lady of Guadelupe - 1531- lead to the conversion of 8 million pagans over 10 years in the New World where the previous 20 years lead to little results.

The tilma (made of cactus fibers that should have decomposed 50 years after it was made) belonging to Juan Diego with the miraculous image that is NOT made by human hands nor with any paints or dyes.

Our Lady of Lourdes - 1858 - 72 confirmed medical miracles after Mary appeared to a young peasant girl in the grotto instructing her to dig in the soil an locate a spring.


Our Lady of Fatima - 1917 - 70,000 people witnessed (including skeptics and even atheists) the miracle of the sun in 1917 as reported by media such as the Portuguese Press and the New York Times. She showed the young children visions of hell and purgatory and encouraged them to pray for all souls so that they would not go to hell.

She gave us the Fatima prayer - Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in need of thy mercy.


I can list several more, if necessary.

What do you consider "verifiable evidence" so that I can better search for it, if this doesn't suffice?

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Luke doesn't say to give her honor. And he certainly doesn't say to honor her in a manner that is consistent with how we honor God, as other posters have suggested.

---

Where does the bible say that it is wrong to give her honor?

Abraham is given honor. Gaberiel gives Mary honor. St Paul tells us to honor those in authority. We are also called to honor our father and mother.

---

Depends on what you mean by honor. Recognizing that she is blessed in history, and praying to her or giving her honor on the same level of Christ, as your buddy Freedom Bear suggests, isn't biblical.

---

I can't speak for Freedom Bear; however, we are NOT to give the same honor to Mary as Jesus. Mary is a mere creature (albeit the most Holy creature ever created), but she, and we, are infinitely beneath Jesus.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Luke doesn't say to give her honor. And he certainly doesn't say to honor her in a manner that is consistent with how we honor God, as other posters have suggested.

---

Where does the bible say that it is wrong to give her honor?

Abraham is given honor. Gaberiel gives Mary honor. St Paul tells us to honor those in authority. We are also called to honor our father and mother.

---

Depends on what you mean by honor. Recognizing that she is blessed in history, and praying to her or giving her honor on the same level of Christ, as your buddy Freedom Bear suggests, isn't biblical.

---

I can't speak for Freedom Bear; however, we are NOT to give the same honor to Mary as Jesus. Mary is a mere creature (albeit the most Holy creature ever created), but she, and we, are infinitely beneath Jesus.

---

Thanks.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There literally is no verifiable evidence of anything you just said.

---

Our Lady of Guadelupe - 1531- lead to the conversion of 8 million pagans over 10 years in the New World where the previous 20 years lead to little results.

The tilma (made of cactus fibers that should have decomposed 50 years after it was made) belonging to Juan Diego with the miraculous image that is NOT made by human hands nor with any paints or dyes.

Our Lady of Lourdes - 1858 - 72 confirmed medical miracles after Mary appeared to a young peasant girl in the grotto instructing her to dig in the soil an locate a spring.


Our Lady of Fatima - 1917 - 70,000 people witnessed (including skeptics and even atheists) the miracle of the sun in 1917 as reported by media such as the Portuguese Press and the New York Times. She showed the young children visions of hell and purgatory and encouraged them to pray for all souls so that they would not go to hell.

She gave us the Fatima prayer - Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in need of thy mercy.


I can list several more, if necessary.

What do you consider "verifiable evidence" so that I can better search for it, if this doesn't suffice?

---

I mean actual physical proof she appeared to people, instead of some individual's account.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

Mothra said:

---

I mean actual physical proof she appeared to people, instead of some individual's account.

---

Fair enough.

Does the miraculous tilma of Our Lady of Guadelupe not count as physical? It's lasted 119 years exposed to salty-air, people's touching, candle fumes, and a variety of other pollutions and still exists without breaking down. It survived an explosion of 20 TNT sticks directly beneath it with NO damage even though windows were broke within 100 yards, the altar was destroyed, and a huge metal crucifix was bent in half.

Not to mention the miraculous image that exists on the tilma itself that has no drawings or sketches underneath it. It has no brushstrokes, no paints or dyes.


How do the 72 confirmed medical miracles not count as proof that our Lady appeared in Lourdes?


One more that I've heard that's relatively recent is The Apparition of Mary at ZEITOUN, EGYPT.

Our Blessed Mother appeared to thousands of people of all religions in 1968 in Zeitoun, Egypt above the church. Initially, some men (Muslims, I believe,) saw her and thought it was a person about to jump. They shouted for her to not jump and call some people to help. Someone eventually recognized her as the Blessed Mother.

She appeared dozens of times. In attempts to discern whether it was a hoax, the church sent people to look for anything that might be transmitting her image somehow. When the image appeared one night, the city killed all the power to that area of the city to see if the image remained. It did. The church sent people to investigate. They couldn't figure it out.


Have said that about the Apparition of Mary at Zeitoun, if the Church came out and said that it WAS NOT a miraculous image, it wouldn't impact my faith in the other approved apparitions, or in Christ and His Church.

If these don't count as physical proof, what do you consider physical proof?

Finally, why is it hard for you to believe that Mary would appear to us throughout the ages to help us lead her to her Son?

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

Mothra said:

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

---

Do you feel that this is an honest assessment of the Catholic position or a strawman argument of what I've said?

Having said that, only God knows what's on the hearts of men.

Mothra said:

---

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation?

---

Now were back to the sola scriptura debate. The Church has had nearly 2000 years to ponder these questions that are not specifically spelled out in the bible. Just like the hypostatic union and two wills of Christ aren't called out in the bible. The Church looks at scripture and tradition to weigh in on these important topics. Ask yourself, if the 14th century Native Americans went to heaven. Is fair that they were born after the resurrection and never heard of Jesus. God knows what's on their hearts.

Mothra said:

---

And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question?

---

20 of the 21 men were Coptic Christians. I assume you men the one non-Christian.

Mothra said:

---

Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

I trust in the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that those who die as martyrs of the Christian faith are believed to enter directly into heaven.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

This.

Plus, how can one be assured that they have "true faith"?

In the 21st century alone, we've seen preachers, singers, and "influencers" that were sincere and led hundreds, if not thousands to Christ, but only to abandon their faith later for some reason.

We're they never "really saved?" These people were on fire for Jesus. If those people were not "really saved", how can anyone be assured that they are saved?

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

This.

Plus, how can one be assured that they have "true faith"?

In the 21st century alone, we've seen preachers, singers, and "influencers" that were sincere and led hundreds, if not thousands to Christ, but only to abandon their faith later for some reason.

We're they never "really saved?" These people were on fire for Jesus. If those people were not "really saved", how can anyone be assured that they are saved?

---

Yep, I think a good metaphor is ironing clothes.

It would be correct to say "wrinkles are removed from clothing by iron" but it would be absurd and absolutely foolish to say that "wrinkles are removed by iron alone" (sola fide). That nothing else apart from the iron contributes in the removal of the wrinkles. That's a very foolish assertion because a cloth will not be removed from its wrinkles unless a person picks the iron up and presses it on the cloth. Also there is need for a surface whether a table or ironing board.

Its justification by faith, but not by faith alone.

Sola fide must protect justification as a once for all legal verdict that cannot depend on anything in the person. To preserve that dogma…obedience, transformation, and perseverance have to be reclassified as non essential to salvation itself.
However much sola fide insists that true faith will produce obedience, it can't allow the lack of obedience to call justification into question without undermining its own framework.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just as I said - complete, non sequitur eisegetic nonsense.

---

No, unfortunately, it is your inability to understand typology. That's what happens when you make up your own religion and don't learn from the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is nothing that says the woman in Revelation is Mary. It is highly symbolic imagery, not a real person. And even if it were, clearly she is feeling pain at childbirth which means she had sin, which goes against your belief in her sinlessness. So you're defeating your own beliefs. And also, even if that were Mary, there is nothing there that suggests she was "assumed" bodily into heaven eiher, only that she is IN heaven, like all believers are.

---

Every Catholic should agree that the imagery in Revelation is polyvalent. Having said that several Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius, Andrew of Caesarea, Augustine, and Irenaeus see Mary as the woman in Revelation. This belief was long before the so-called reformers rebelled from Christ's Church.

Please check your Bible again in Gen 3:16

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children,"

It never said that the pain wasn't there before. Also, one could argue that any woman after the fall would have pains in birth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is nothing that says the ark is Mary. And EVEN if your distorted mind says that it is, still, nothing there suggests she was assumed bodily into heaven, but only that she is IN heaven.

---

Luke goes to great lengths in his first chapter to identify Mary as the new Ark. I know that I and others have covered this many times before. The correlation between Luke and Samuel are nearly word for word.

Well, Rev clearly shows her BODY in the heavens. Also, we have NO relics of Mary. The Church has relics of ALL of the apostles and Mary Magdalene, but none for Mary, the most holy human person ever.

---

- Typology can be fully concocted to fit what you already want to believe. I gave an example earlier of proving that Jesus is Satan based on Scripture describing both Jesus and Satan coming to earth like "lightning". It's a dangerous and foolish way to establish doctrine, especially that which you make necessary for salvation.

- The woman in Revelation was "clothed with the sun" and had a "crown of twelve stars". This is representative of something FAR more than one person, even it were Mary. It fits more with the nation or religion of Israel (twelve tribes). In Revelation, women were represented as religions, churches, and belief systems. And the woman was described as being in "agony" over childbirth. Clearly, the pain from chidlbirth today hasn't been "greatly multiplied" from "agony", so this was obviously describing the same pain. And regardless of all this, the imagery of the woman in heaven, nor the ark being in heaven, DOES NOT SHOW THAT SHE WAS BODILY ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN. Any idiot can see this. Moses and Elijah appeared to the disciples with a body. So did Samuel in the Old Testament. This is a demonstration of how poorly you comprehend and reason, and therefore everything else you argue is likewise extremely suspect.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

---

Do you feel that this is an honest assessment of the Catholic position or a strawman argument of what I've said?

Having said that, only God knows what's on the hearts of men.

Mothra said:

---

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation?

---

Now were back to the sola scriptura debate. The Church has had nearly 2000 years to ponder these questions that are not specifically spelled out in the bible. Just like the hypostatic union and two wills of Christ aren't called out in the bible. The Church looks at scripture and tradition to weigh in on these important topics. Ask yourself, if the 14th century Native Americans went to heaven. Is fair that they were born after the resurrection and never heard of Jesus. God knows what's on their hearts.

Mothra said:

---

And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question?

---

20 of the 21 men were Coptic Christians. I assume you men the one non-Christian.

Mothra said:

---

Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

I trust in the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that those who die as martyrs of the Christian faith are believed to enter directly into heaven.

---

Respectfully, I am not sure it's as much of a strawman is its just an inherent inconsistency in your faith. You tell us, these things are required for salvation. Unless they aren't. I understand that type of inconsistency may be something you've been able to live with. I couldn't ever get there.

With respect to sola scriptura, what you're really saying is, we have to turn to extra-biblical sources to justify our belief. So, to my question, it appears there is no written waiver in scripture. We just have to hope that God waived the requirements imposed on humanity, but just can't be sure.

How about this - can you tell us what extra-scriptural sources you are relying on for the position that the men at issue didn't need to take the Eucharist or be baptized to be saved? Is there some writing outside of scripture that has led you to this belief?

I thought you were saying that these men were killed despite not performing the sacraments. Is that not the case?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The serpent was not something they bowed and prayed to, as if it were a "window" to God. It was a prefigurement of Jesus. Now that Jesus has come, there is no instruction or reference whatsoever in all of the New Testament for Christians to do this. There is not a single instance of Jesus' church using pictures and images of himself or departed believers as part of prayer and worship. And in fact, it was the unanimous consensus among the early church fathers that icon veneration was forbidden.

---

First your quote is an ALL OUT LIE. I apologize for being so blunt. Many of your post state falsehoods and they are placed in BOLD. They need to be called out and refuted. Very few mentioned Icon Veneration. Those that did oppose it was because a variety of reason such as keeping Christianity away from paganism, keeping the focus on the intellectual (not the sensory), some with an outright refusal.

I fully understand why this practice existed as the Church was battling paganism and always many had come from a Jewish background. But as time progressed, people realized that they is nothing in the bible that says you can't make images. God commanded the Hebrews to make the bronze serpent, cherubim, and all the decorations in the Temple. He forbade the worshipping of them AS a god.

---

This post of yours is an ALL OUT LIE.

The early church fathers overwhelmingly opposed using any image or statue - anything made by man's hands - in prayer, worship, and liturgy. This is just an incontrovertible fact. And this is exactly what icon veneration involves.

You: "nothing in the bible says you can't make images". This isn't about just making images, it's about using them in worship, prayer, and liturgy. You've dishonestly mischaracterized the issue to attempt to justify your practice.

You are trying to use an example of objects God commanded the Israelis to make, but NOT BOW TO, PRAY "THROUGH", KISS, AND GIVE OFFERINGS to, as a tacit approval to make objects and then BOW, PRAY THROUGH, KISS, and GIVE OFFERINGS to them. Complete foolishness. You do realize what happened to that bronze serpent in 2 Kings 18, don't you?:

"In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan)"

God was pleased with King Hezekiah's iconoclasm.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

I'm no stranger to attending Protestant churches. I was baptized in one. They made it very clear that it was purely symbolic. The last one I attended there was a hardcore calvinist trying to convince me that God picks and chooses who he saves.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

---

Justification by faith, not works.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

---

Justification by faith, not works.

---

Gotcha.

Why not both? Why is it necessary for you to have a dichotomy?

"Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead"
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And how many times are you going to repeat your failed argument about "scripture must prove scripture" in order for sola scriptura to be correct? Can you really not understand the logical flaw in that? Or that sola scriptura doesn't exist before scripture does? I'm literally talking to a wall.

---

Sola Scriptura didn't exist until the 16th century. Your only "success" in trying to find a Church father that believed in was using St Augustine out of context and I demonstrated that your claim was pulling one passage OUT OF CONTEXT (again) and that he did not believe in such a thing.

---

Your denial of Augustine's clear and concise words is indicative of the desperation you have to stay in a lie. It is beyond remarkable, the grasp that the Devil has over you.

Here are his words again, so that the public can see for themselves how incredibly sad it is, the way you're gaslighting yourself:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

"Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." (On the Trinity, Book 3)

"But there are others who do not say that all these truths are false. They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow."



It is beyond remarkable, the degree to which people will lie to themselves and deny what's right in front of their eyes in order to preserve their own psyche. Immature self defense mechanisms are a real and significant thing that keeps people in darkness.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

---

Justification by faith, not works.

---

Gotcha.

Why not both? Why is it necessary for you to have a dichotomy?

"Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead"
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"

---

- so are Paul and James in contradiction?

- so, Jesus came and died on the cross to remove obedience to the Law as the way to salvation.... only to institute another set of "rules" we must obey for salvation?

- and for maybe the hundredth time: if we are justified by works, then how much works justifies us? None of us can be perfect, so what's the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus to be choose to save someone above that cutoff point, but someone just barely below the cutoff point goes to Hell? Is that justice?

Does any of this make sense? Does this really sound like the gospel?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

---

Justification by faith, not works.

---

Gotcha.

Why not both? Why is it necessary for you to have a dichotomy?

"Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead"
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"

---

- so are Paul and James in contradiction?

- so, Jesus came and died on the cross to remove obedience to the Law as the way to salvation.... only to institute another set of "rules" we must obey for salvation?

- and for maybe the hundredth time: if we are justified by works, then how much works justifies us? None of us can be perfect, so what's the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus to be choose to save someone above that cutoff point, but someone just barely below the cutoff point goes to Hell? Is that justice?

Does any of this make sense? Does this really sound like the gospel?

---

We're not justified solely by works nor solely by faith, were justified by faith and works.

Your question about the cuttoff point only makes sense if someone was arguing works alone, which I'm not. Works aren't a second ingredient added to faith in some required amount. They're the expression of living faith. The issue is not how many, but whether faith is alive at all.

Paul and James are only in contradiction only if there's a separation between faith and works.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

God does not hold people to what they cannot do. i.e. the Good thief. He had no time to take the Eucharist.

---

So, to be clear, if a person accepts Christ on their death bed and is physically unable to take the Eucharist, get baptized, etc., God just waives those requirements?

---

Yes, God is NOT subject to the sacraments, we are.

For instance, in Feb 2015, 21 men included 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians and one Ghanaian national, Matthew Ayariga, who chose to stand with them, declaring "Their God is my God" when asked to reject Christ. They were mostly poor laborers seeking work to support their families back in their home villages.

The non-Christian didn't have time to be baptized or take the Eucharist; however, the Church considers him a martyr of the faith and is in heaven.

For the other 99.9999% of the world post-Christianity, we are called to be baptized.

This is not a knock on you, but I, and others, have mentioned many times on here that Christianity is not an "either/or". It generally a "both/and".

God is not that rigid. He is equal parts mercy and justice.

---

What an interesting faith. So, just depends on how God is feeling that day I guess.

Can you tell me in scripture where it says God waives the requirements Catholics believe he requires of man for salvation? And are you sure that the Catholic Church is correct, and God waived those requirements for the men in question? Do we know for sure they were saved, despite not going through all of the steps Catholics deem necessary?

---

Salvation hinges on the state of the heart and the direction of the will. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Behavior is the evidence of that orientation. Scripture constantly says we're judged according to our works. Not because works earn salvation, but because they reveal what we actually believe.

Do you know why Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Salvation doesn't rest on a private claim of faith. It rests on a life that either cooperates with God or resists Him.

I think there are a lot of people who genuinely believe Jesus is Lord. They go to church, they're sincere, and they're convinced Christianity is true. But knowing something is true isn't the same as surrendering yourself to it.

You have to die. You must die to yourself. There's a massive amount of effort on our behalf to do this.

I thinks clear in scripture that you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Repentance, surrender, and transformation is often rebranded as "fruit" that may or may not show up, I don't buy that. Repentance, surrender, and transformation requires your willpower. It's a real, costly act of yielding yourself to God. Grace isn't coercive. God doesn't repent for you. He doesn't surrender for you.

Sola fide has to say repentance, obedience, and transformation are not conditions of salvation, only results that may appear later. That's the problem. You can say "true faith will produce repentance," but if the absence of repentance never falsifies the claim of faith, then faith has been reduced to an internal assertion. At that point, sola fide protects assurance more than it protects Christ's commands.

---

Your first 6 paragraphs are spot on. Galatians 2:20 is one of my favorite verses in scripture ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me"). Indeed, we must die to ourselves. And you are exactly right - Christians are called to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, and are known by their fruit.

And then there's your last paragraph, which once again, badly misses the mark. I am a sola fide guy, and yet I believe everything you said in the first 6 verses. According to you, that's impossible. Yet, here I am. Here is my church.

You really need to learn more about sects other than Orthodoxy. What you think they believe and what they believe are two VERY different things.

---

Explain your understanding of sola fide to me.

---

Justification by faith, not works.

---

Gotcha.

Why not both? Why is it necessary for you to have a dichotomy?

"Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead"
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"

---

- so are Paul and James in contradiction?

- so, Jesus came and died on the cross to remove obedience to the Law as the way to salvation.... only to institute another set of "rules" we must obey for salvation?

- and for maybe the hundredth time: if we are justified by works, then how much works justifies us? None of us can be perfect, so what's the cutoff point? And what is the basis for Jesus to be choose to save someone above that cutoff point, but someone just barely below the cutoff point goes to Hell? Is that justice?

Does any of this make sense? Does this really sound like the gospel?

---

We're not justified solely by works nor solely by faith, were justified by faith and works.

Your question about the cuttoff point only makes sense if someone was arguing works alone, which I'm not. Works aren't a second ingredient added to faith in some required amount. They're the expression of living faith. The issue is not how many, but whether faith is alive at all.

Paul and James are only in contradiction only if there's a separation between faith and works.

---

Okay, so what level of works along with faith is required for it to qualify as a "living faith"? What's the cutoff level for the works, to where above it is a "living faith", but just a smidgeon below it is not? Obvioulsy, you're not saying that someone can have faith and do only ONE work, and you're also not saying someone has to have faith and be PERFECT in works because that would be impossible... so where is the cutoff level? If you say we can't know, then that would contradict 1 John 5:13, wouldn't it? Not only that, it would contradict Jesus' own words, that anyone who believes in him (even the guy with ONE work) wil be saved, wouldn't it?

You see the problem? You haven't solved the issue with injecting works into the salvation equation. You're only trying to obscure it.