Worth a quick listen

historian said:

---

John write the words spoken by Jesus. John 3:16 is part of a longer conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus. And it is His direct words. Jesus emphasis on being "born again" is another example of Christ not being literal. Nicodemus was confused because he took it literally and then Jesus explained it to him. One only needs to read the complete chapter. (Actually it is a good idea to read the entire book. The Gospel of John is filled with great wisdom and sound theology.)

---

I have read the complete chapter. I also gave you a cross reference in 1 John written in a similar style. The wording of 316 and the way 315 and prior was written is different.

You and I are not the only ones who disagree about this.. agree to disagree

Fre3dombear said:

---

Worth a quick listen

---

This is NOT an argument against sola scriptura. This is an argument against the perspicuity of Scripture.

Sola scriptura continues to be perhaps the single most misunderstood concept by Roman Catholics. It trips them up every time. Even AFTER it's been explained here a hundred times.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

It is silly to think the Lord God advocated a form of cannibalism! It makes much more sense to realize that Christ was speaking metaphorically when he said in the same way He was never literally a door, a vine, or a letter of the Greek alphabet. Likewise He was never a shepherd in the literal sense (but did fulfill OT prophecy) or a physician.

---

Several disciples left after He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. They found this teaching too difficult to accept, calling it a "hard saying", resulting in a mass departure of followers.

The general instruction appears twice, but the Gospel of John records Jesus repeating the concept at least six times within a single discourse to emphasize its importance. Now, if you're a disciple listening to Jesus, and you were arguing among yourselves about whether He was being literal, and this was His response what would you say? Would this clarify that He is being metaphorical?

Why would they act like that if it was just a metaphor and symbolic?

Some protestants (Lutherans) believe its a sacrament. Its only in the past couple of hundred years that people gradually started seeing it as symbolic and of not much importance. Many denominations barely even practice it.

Even if you think its symbolic, there's something very wrong with juice/cracker and then throwing it in the trash on the way out. If its only supposed to be symbolic...then discarding it in the trash is also symbolic.

---

Reiterating its importance, and saying that the bread and wine literally become Christ's flesh and blood, are two very different things.

I get that to you it's lost its holiness and symbolism (which seems to motivate a lot of your posts on religious topics), but that is quite a different thing than literally believing you are eating literal flesh and blood - an idea that simply isn't supported in scripture.

---

Both of our views are supported by scripture. It can be argued from the text in multiple ways because it doesn't explicitly say "Its symbolic" nor does it say "its literal". Scripture is also even more difficult than just specific verses, its how it harmonizes with the rest of the bible, what the cultural context was etc.

We're both engaging in hermeneutics and we're relying on an authority to dictate the truth.
Many Protestants disagree with you and claim the exact same thing you did "that other views aren't supported in scripture".

You're relying on later reformed doctrine that is schismatic from mainline Protestantism and I'm relying on Orthodox.

---

If the disciples understood Jesus to be talking literally - why then would they instruct Gentile believers to abstain from blood?

If you believe Jesus was being literal, then do you believe that one MUST eat his flesh in order to be saved? Wouldn't that mean, then, that despite what one believes, salvation is entirely dependent on eating a piece of bread and drinking wine from communion/the Eucharist? Do you really think that's the gospel?

---

The command in Acts 15 is about ordinary animal blood, not sacramental participation in Christ. You've got gentiles eating with Jews who had Torah dietary conscience. Eating blood publicly would destroy unity in the Church.

Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
We are buried with Christ through baptism (Romans 6)
The bread is a participation (koinonia) in Christ's body (1 Corinthians 10:16)

These arent legal declarations. You're reading first century Christianity through later juridical and nominal categories.
The apostles were not making legal declarations about status before God. They were describing participation in divine life.

The ancient world did not separate symbol from reality the way modern nominalism does. This is a ancient vs modern mindset issue. Have you ever looked into this? It's a big deal, not something you can just brush off.

Ex. In the Roman world, offering incense before the emperor's statue was not seen as honoring a representation. It was honoring the emperor himself. Treaties were sealed with sacrificed animals because participants believed they mystically entered the covenant fate.

This kind of cultural assumption already existed. You have to read and understand it thought that lens. Not a different paradigm that shows up 1400+ years later.

---

The command in Acts does not limit it only to animal blood. They just say "blood". You're adding to their words. If eating the literal blood of Jesus was the absolute requirement of salvation (what you MUST believe if you believe in the literal interpretation), then it would behoove the apostles to make that very, very important distinction when making that command to the Gentile believers so as not to create any eternal life-altering confusion.

How can "baptism now save you", when the literal intepretation of John 6 shows that literal eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood is what saves you, and nothing else? You never answered this, as I've asked this repeatedly. Otherwise, you're calling Jesus a liar, when he says eating his flesh is a MUST for salvation, and that NOT eating him means "you have no life within you".

You would think that, given the absolute requirement of the practice of eating Jesus flesh for salvation, that it would have been declared in explicit terms throughout the New Testament. You would think that Peter and Paul would have mentioned it when they were asked how to be saved. You would think that the house of Cornelius, even after having been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and being water baptized, that the point would have been made that they still needed to eat literally Jesus' flesh and drink his blood, otherwise they weren't saved.

Your literal interpretation has a tremendous amount of problems. Instead of understanding it the way that Augustine said to understand it, that is, figuratively, you are left trying to scramble and twist yourself in order to keep your literal understanding. I can keep adding to your dilemma, like the thief on the cross, and how Judas Iscariot, who "ate Jesus' flesh" in the Last Supper yet who wasn't saved. It's just so obvious that Jesus' words weren't literal and that's consistent with the whole of Scripture. For God's sakes, man, Jesus himself even explained that it wasn't literal, that it was spiritual!

By the way... you agree that the symbolic interpretation is NOT a "new invention" of Protestantism, don't you?

---

The dilemma you're raising only works if the Eucharist is understood either as crude literal cannibalism or as mere symbolism. It's not strictly either, it's participation in Christ.

When Jesus speaks in John 6, He's not talking about chewing biological tissue. He's speaking about participation in His life. That's why He immediately says, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing."

Scripture never presents salvation as a single isolated moment. The New Testament consistently speaks of one reality from multiple angles: we are saved through faith, baptized into Christ, born of water and Spirit, united to His body, nourished by His flesh and blood. These are not rival requirements.

Around AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote on his way to martyrdom that those who deny the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ separate themselves from the Church. This isn't a medieval development. This is within living memory of the apostles.

If the apostles taught communion as merely symbolic, how did a direct student of John speak this strongly, this early, and without controversy from the wider Church?

Either Ignatius fundamentally misunderstood apostolic Christianity only a few years after the apostles, or the early Church understood the Eucharist as real participation in Christ from the beginning.

---

Ive never understood basing one's faith on thief on the cross, an example of the least common denominator possible. Protestants bring it up all the time as their forever get out of jail free card.

Catholic catechism of Course acknowledges that even someone that puts a bullet in their own head, can make it to Heaven. Wouldn't recommend that is how one lives their life, but God works in mysterious ways and all is possible with God.

---

It appears to me you either don't understand why protestants bring it up, or more likely than not, you're just not reading or mischaracterizing.

The point of the thief is not that it's some sort of get out of jail free card. I brought it up with you because it completely turns on its head the Catholic belief that certain sacraments (i.e. baptism and the Eucharist) are necessary for salvation. The thief completely disproves that.

---

or there were circumstances clearly understood that water baptism and communion were impossible.

I beleive catholics have specific teachings on times the baptism isnt available and that salvation is still possible

---

But does that teaching come from God? That's the question. I don't think God would present his plan of salvation with ad hoc "escape" clauses to deal with whatever inherent logical, technical, and situational difficulties that may arise. "Necessary.... but NOT necessary" isn't ever going to be a teaching coming from God.

---

hard for me to say because Jesus himself told us to be water baptized(He began his ministry after his baptism) and The Lord was well pleased with the Son after the baptism. Yet we know of circumstances that salvation was attained without baptism.

I am not Catholic so my response is limited.

---

Should it really be hard to say? Would God ever make one's salvation fully contingent upon a performative act, despite one's faith?

---

John 4:1-2
"Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than Johnalthough in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples."

Seems important that it was noted that Jesus didnt baptize but he said

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

ACTS 2:38
"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

ROMANS 6:3
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

ACTS 8:36-37
"As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, 'Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?' And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him."

Acts 22:16
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

Matthew 7 13-14 describe the narrow gate and that not many will make it through.. perseverance of faith alone till the end may be the answer, but not many will succeed according to Jesus

---

I'm not sure what you're saying, you're just posting verses without telling me what you think they mean. Do you think these verses are saying that salvation is contingent upon getting water baptized, regardless of one's faith? These verses don't seem to explicitly state anything like that.

---

I dont know if it is or not, if there is special circumstances or not.. i am not a theologeon or a person who grew up in the word, I am just a wretched sinner who hopes he has enough faith in death and resurrection of Yeshua to pass thru the narrow gate

What I think the scripture says is:
The apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Acts 2:38 says you recieve the Holy Spirit after baptism, just like Jesus did

It is constantly mentioned that those that interacted with Jesus were saved without baptism but as noted in John 4:1-2 that Jesus did not baptize anyone while his disciples did significant numbers of them . Jesus might be the special circumstance since Jesus said in John 3:5 that no one can enter the kindom of God who is not born of water..

The answer to your question is I dont know.. I am not confident in my interpretation, only in my faith in Christ

---

You can be a lot more certain than you're letting yourself be. If a believer's salvation is contingent on getting water baptized, then you would think the Holy Spirit would have made that explicitly clear in Scripture. However, Scripture, especially the words of Jesus himself, always tells us that if we believe then we are saved. We even have direct examples of this in the thief and the sinful woman in Luke 7. You would think that if someone could hear the gospel and believe it with al their heart, but yet still go to Hell because they don't get dunked in water, that God would have made sure that was made clear in explicit terms.

In other words, Jesus saying "whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life" would be a lie if someone believes in him, but because they didn't get water baptized they DON'T have everlasting life and instead they perish in Hell. If John said, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life", you would think that if not getting dunked in water makes all that null and void, that he'd be certain to make mention of it. As would Paul, Peter, James, and the Gospel writers.

Now consider this: if God allows an "exception" for when someone can't be water baptized because they weren't able or didn't know - then if God is completely capable of overlooking this requirement for one believer, then why couldn't he for all believers? Would God send a believer to Hell for not doing something that he was able to overlook in another believer? Is that just? Would God be so arbitrary in determining the eternal fate of those who believe in him like this, especially after telling them in Scripture that if you believe in Jesus, you are saved?

I would be very very careful with how easy protestants and Bible church pastors in big houses say it is to get to Heaven. They contradict themselves constantly but do great disservice with their extreme views from Calvin and Luther.

Even just simple logic by a secularist would suggest otherwise as been shown them hundreds of times even on this tiny little site of genius theologians

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

It is silly to think the Lord God advocated a form of cannibalism! It makes much more sense to realize that Christ was speaking metaphorically when he said in the same way He was never literally a door, a vine, or a letter of the Greek alphabet. Likewise He was never a shepherd in the literal sense (but did fulfill OT prophecy) or a physician.

---

Several disciples left after He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. They found this teaching too difficult to accept, calling it a "hard saying", resulting in a mass departure of followers.

The general instruction appears twice, but the Gospel of John records Jesus repeating the concept at least six times within a single discourse to emphasize its importance. Now, if you're a disciple listening to Jesus, and you were arguing among yourselves about whether He was being literal, and this was His response what would you say? Would this clarify that He is being metaphorical?

Why would they act like that if it was just a metaphor and symbolic?

Some protestants (Lutherans) believe its a sacrament. Its only in the past couple of hundred years that people gradually started seeing it as symbolic and of not much importance. Many denominations barely even practice it.

Even if you think its symbolic, there's something very wrong with juice/cracker and then throwing it in the trash on the way out. If its only supposed to be symbolic...then discarding it in the trash is also symbolic.

---

Reiterating its importance, and saying that the bread and wine literally become Christ's flesh and blood, are two very different things.

I get that to you it's lost its holiness and symbolism (which seems to motivate a lot of your posts on religious topics), but that is quite a different thing than literally believing you are eating literal flesh and blood - an idea that simply isn't supported in scripture.

---

Both of our views are supported by scripture. It can be argued from the text in multiple ways because it doesn't explicitly say "Its symbolic" nor does it say "its literal". Scripture is also even more difficult than just specific verses, its how it harmonizes with the rest of the bible, what the cultural context was etc.

We're both engaging in hermeneutics and we're relying on an authority to dictate the truth.
Many Protestants disagree with you and claim the exact same thing you did "that other views aren't supported in scripture".

You're relying on later reformed doctrine that is schismatic from mainline Protestantism and I'm relying on Orthodox.

---

If the disciples understood Jesus to be talking literally - why then would they instruct Gentile believers to abstain from blood?

If you believe Jesus was being literal, then do you believe that one MUST eat his flesh in order to be saved? Wouldn't that mean, then, that despite what one believes, salvation is entirely dependent on eating a piece of bread and drinking wine from communion/the Eucharist? Do you really think that's the gospel?

---

The command in Acts 15 is about ordinary animal blood, not sacramental participation in Christ. You've got gentiles eating with Jews who had Torah dietary conscience. Eating blood publicly would destroy unity in the Church.

Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
We are buried with Christ through baptism (Romans 6)
The bread is a participation (koinonia) in Christ's body (1 Corinthians 10:16)

These arent legal declarations. You're reading first century Christianity through later juridical and nominal categories.
The apostles were not making legal declarations about status before God. They were describing participation in divine life.

The ancient world did not separate symbol from reality the way modern nominalism does. This is a ancient vs modern mindset issue. Have you ever looked into this? It's a big deal, not something you can just brush off.

Ex. In the Roman world, offering incense before the emperor's statue was not seen as honoring a representation. It was honoring the emperor himself. Treaties were sealed with sacrificed animals because participants believed they mystically entered the covenant fate.

This kind of cultural assumption already existed. You have to read and understand it thought that lens. Not a different paradigm that shows up 1400+ years later.

---

The command in Acts does not limit it only to animal blood. They just say "blood". You're adding to their words. If eating the literal blood of Jesus was the absolute requirement of salvation (what you MUST believe if you believe in the literal interpretation), then it would behoove the apostles to make that very, very important distinction when making that command to the Gentile believers so as not to create any eternal life-altering confusion.

How can "baptism now save you", when the literal intepretation of John 6 shows that literal eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood is what saves you, and nothing else? You never answered this, as I've asked this repeatedly. Otherwise, you're calling Jesus a liar, when he says eating his flesh is a MUST for salvation, and that NOT eating him means "you have no life within you".

You would think that, given the absolute requirement of the practice of eating Jesus flesh for salvation, that it would have been declared in explicit terms throughout the New Testament. You would think that Peter and Paul would have mentioned it when they were asked how to be saved. You would think that the house of Cornelius, even after having been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and being water baptized, that the point would have been made that they still needed to eat literally Jesus' flesh and drink his blood, otherwise they weren't saved.

Your literal interpretation has a tremendous amount of problems. Instead of understanding it the way that Augustine said to understand it, that is, figuratively, you are left trying to scramble and twist yourself in order to keep your literal understanding. I can keep adding to your dilemma, like the thief on the cross, and how Judas Iscariot, who "ate Jesus' flesh" in the Last Supper yet who wasn't saved. It's just so obvious that Jesus' words weren't literal and that's consistent with the whole of Scripture. For God's sakes, man, Jesus himself even explained that it wasn't literal, that it was spiritual!

By the way... you agree that the symbolic interpretation is NOT a "new invention" of Protestantism, don't you?

---

The dilemma you're raising only works if the Eucharist is understood either as crude literal cannibalism or as mere symbolism. It's not strictly either, it's participation in Christ.

When Jesus speaks in John 6, He's not talking about chewing biological tissue. He's speaking about participation in His life. That's why He immediately says, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing."

Scripture never presents salvation as a single isolated moment. The New Testament consistently speaks of one reality from multiple angles: we are saved through faith, baptized into Christ, born of water and Spirit, united to His body, nourished by His flesh and blood. These are not rival requirements.

Around AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote on his way to martyrdom that those who deny the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ separate themselves from the Church. This isn't a medieval development. This is within living memory of the apostles.

If the apostles taught communion as merely symbolic, how did a direct student of John speak this strongly, this early, and without controversy from the wider Church?

Either Ignatius fundamentally misunderstood apostolic Christianity only a few years after the apostles, or the early Church understood the Eucharist as real participation in Christ from the beginning.

---

Ive never understood basing one's faith on thief on the cross, an example of the least common denominator possible. Protestants bring it up all the time as their forever get out of jail free card.

Catholic catechism of Course acknowledges that even someone that puts a bullet in their own head, can make it to Heaven. Wouldn't recommend that is how one lives their life, but God works in mysterious ways and all is possible with God.

---

It appears to me you either don't understand why protestants bring it up, or more likely than not, you're just not reading or mischaracterizing.

The point of the thief is not that it's some sort of get out of jail free card. I brought it up with you because it completely turns on its head the Catholic belief that certain sacraments (i.e. baptism and the Eucharist) are necessary for salvation. The thief completely disproves that.

---

ie get out of jail free card ie hey heres an example where Jesus did X and it therefore can be extrapolated wayyyyyyy over here. Dont worry. Thief on cross. Youre good.

Dangerous.

God can do anything. Hes God. God can admit someone who committed suicide to heaven and on and on.

Not a cornerstone go to argument to Build one of thousands of beliefs on

You nor anyone has any clue what Jesus saw in the thief on the cross' soul and his unique situation

4th and Inches said:

---

I pray that Jesus blesses you, especiallly when it comes to scripture.

Holy Spirit, come over them..

John 3:16 was written by John, not spoken by Jesus.

3:16 is Very similar to 1 John 4:9

Jesus in John 3:5 spoke that you must of water

Why deny the words of Jesus? What reason is there to give more weight to 3:16 than 3:5 other than it makes you feel good.

While Jesus did speak in parables, this seems to be a plain and clear response to Nicodemus

JOHN 14:27
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you."

---

Seems youre directing this to the wrong person. Others here say look john 3:16 so all that other stuff doesn't matter. Not any Catholic poster ive seen. Course correct with example if you disagree.

Jesus didnt speak? Ummm. Bible is inspired word of God. Jesus is God. Those were John's words not God's?

4th and Inches said:

---

Johm 6:53 is part of a bigger parable. When Jesus proclaimed, "My flesh is real food," in John 6:55 He was not speaking literally but metaphorically, highlighting that His sacrifice is the true sustenance for spiritual life. Similarly, "My blood is real drink" signifies the new covenant through His sacrifice, offering eternal life and redemption.

This verse echoes themes found in other biblical passages, such as John 6:35, where Jesus declares Himself as the bread of life, emphasizing that those who come to Him will find lasting nourishment. The connection to the Last Supper in Matthew 26:26-28, where Jesus institutes the practice of communion using bread and wine to symbolize His body and blood, further reinforces the significance of His sacrifice. Paul's recounting of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 underscores the importance of remembering Jesus' sacrifice through communion, tying back to the spiritual depth conveyed in John 6:55.

---

I and others have articulated john 6:53 ad nauseum. Just you saying its a metaphor doesn't mean its so but as your own pope and magisterium I can see how it could be so for you

You know, reading through this thread and the other main one on the topic, I have not seen anyone pretending that it's easy for someone to go to Heaven.

Heaven, of course, is the province of God. No man but Christ merited Heaven, and anyone who goes to Heaven will do so only because of the Mercy of God according to the Salvation made possible through Jesus Christ.

Certainly Christ desires that many of us shall be saved. And we have a great deal of Scripture which tells us what God wants from us. Since Scripture seems to offend some here, I will not cite the relevant ones just now, but we all know they are there.

It just seems odd to me that there is so much derision about trying to follow Christ as He exemplified and taught.

canoso said:

---

historian said:

---

John write the words spoken by Jesus. John 3:16 is part of a longer conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus. And it is His direct words. Jesus emphasis on being "born again" is another example of Christ not being literal. Nicodemus was confused because he took it literally and then Jesus explained it to him. One only needs to read the complete chapter. (Actually it is a good idea to read the entire book. The Gospel of John is filled with great wisdom and sound theology.)

---

When Jesus says "born of the Spirit," He's speaking literally because obviously He's speaking spiritually.

Nicodemus cannot think in spiritual terms because they are spiritually discerned and at that point he is still dead in his trespasses and sins, which is the way every human being is born into this material world.

---

Except Mary of course.

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

historian said:

---

John write the words spoken by Jesus. John 3:16 is part of a longer conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus. And it is His direct words. Jesus emphasis on being "born again" is another example of Christ not being literal. Nicodemus was confused because he took it literally and then Jesus explained it to him. One only needs to read the complete chapter. (Actually it is a good idea to read the entire book. The Gospel of John is filled with great wisdom and sound theology.)

---

When Jesus says "born of the Spirit," He's speaking literally because obviously He's speaking spiritually.

Nicodemus cannot think in spiritual terms because they are spiritually discerned and at that point he is still dead in his trespasses and sins, which is the way every human being is born into this material world.

---

Except Mary of course.

---

including Mary

Oldbear83 said:

---

You know, reading through this thread and the other main one on the topic, I have not seen anyone pretending that it's easy for someone to go to Heaven.

Heaven, of course, is the province of God. No man but Christ merited Heaven, and anyone who goes to Heaven will do so only because of the Mercy of God according to the Salvation made possible through Jesus Christ.

Certainly Christ desires that many of us shall be saved. And we have a great deal of Scripture which tells us what God wants from us. Since Scripture seems to offend some here, I will not cite the relevant ones just now, but we all know they are there.

It just seems odd to me that there is so much derision about trying to follow Christ as He exemplified and taught.

---

It is interesting no? Just completely different views of what is commanded of us and generally does devolve into protestants saying thief on cross and theres nothing required of you but believe for a moment at one point in time and you have salvation and you can never lose it.

Seems very difficult and something requiring one to work out their faith with fear and loathing . How God works that out, only a couple on this site know for sure at this moment.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You know, reading through this thread and the other main one on the topic, I have not seen anyone pretending that it's easy for someone to go to Heaven.

Heaven, of course, is the province of God. No man but Christ merited Heaven, and anyone who goes to Heaven will do so only because of the Mercy of God according to the Salvation made possible through Jesus Christ.

Certainly Christ desires that many of us shall be saved. And we have a great deal of Scripture which tells us what God wants from us. Since Scripture seems to offend some here, I will not cite the relevant ones just now, but we all know they are there.

It just seems odd to me that there is so much derision about trying to follow Christ as He exemplified and taught.

---

It is interesting no? Just completely different views of what is commanded of us and generally does devolve into protestants saying thief on cross and theres nothing required of you but believe for a moment at one point in time and you have salvation and you can never lose it.

Seems very difficult and something requiring one to work out their faith with fear and loathing . How God works that out, only a couple on this site know for sure at this moment.

---

You really ignore everything but that argument, I observe.

And your tone drips with contempt for fellow Christians. I'd suggest you pay some attention to that.

But since you are so obsessed with an argument no one actually made, let me speak to this question of the thief on the cross.

Heaven belongs to God. Kinda obvious, but like it or not it means that God can and does show mercy wherever and however He pleases.

It would be the height of arrogance and pride for any of us to imagine we will receive that same specific grace, not least because even if we should confess our sins and believe while we are dying, we are hardly going to be dying with Christ just feet away going through the same torment.

Not exactly the game plan anyone should use for getting to even see Heaven, let alone enter.

And every Christian I ever knew wanted to grow in faith and walk with Christ in their life. The idea that someone thinks they can just pick up a Salvation like a product at a store and keep it for later, is as fake as plant burgers.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You know, reading through this thread and the other main one on the topic, I have not seen anyone pretending that it's easy for someone to go to Heaven.

Heaven, of course, is the province of God. No man but Christ merited Heaven, and anyone who goes to Heaven will do so only because of the Mercy of God according to the Salvation made possible through Jesus Christ.

Certainly Christ desires that many of us shall be saved. And we have a great deal of Scripture which tells us what God wants from us. Since Scripture seems to offend some here, I will not cite the relevant ones just now, but we all know they are there.

It just seems odd to me that there is so much derision about trying to follow Christ as He exemplified and taught.

---

It is interesting no? Just completely different views of what is commanded of us and generally does devolve into protestants saying thief on cross and theres nothing required of you but believe for a moment at one point in time and you have salvation and you can never lose it.

Seems very difficult and something requiring one to work out their faith with fear and loathing . How God works that out, only a couple on this site know for sure at this moment.

---

You really ignore everything but that argument, I observe.

And your tone drips with contempt for fellow Christians. I'd suggest you pay some attention to that.

But since you are so obsessed with an argument no one actually made, let me speak to this question of the thief on the cross.

Heaven belongs to God. Kinda obvious, but like it or not it means that God can and does show mercy wherever and however He pleases.

It would be the height of arrogance and pride for any of us to imagine we will receive that same specific grace, not least because even if we should confess our sins and believe while we are dying, we are hardly going to be dying with Christ just feet away going through the same torment.

Not exactly the game plan anyone should use for getting to even see Heaven, let alone enter.

And every Christian I ever knew wanted to grow in faith and walk with Christ in their life. The idea that someone thinks they can just pick up a Salvation like a product at a store and keep it for later, is as fake as plant burgers.

---

You may be reading into my words based on your conclusions but as a mere lowly sinner myself, i will not be doing anyone's final judgement. So you're wrong about that insight.

Also wrong that nobody has made that point. Its the only reason I make it as its made perpetually here. Not as much on other boards.

I agree with the rest of your post best I can tell although you did narrow the scope of what you replied to to just thief on the cross which is fine though my comment quoted was much broader in fact.

You really do need to own up to your spite, brother.

You are better than that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You really do need to own up to your spite, brother.

You are better than that.

---

Not your beother and weak minded call someone else names and project the behavior you wished they had into them and ask them to defend is too sophomoric to do more than chuckle.

You get very dull when this is rhe behaviour you flip into as you emote. Stick with defending positions and you really shouldnt bear false witness…brother / sister .

Please, stay focused and avoid ad homs. Keeps it clean and unemotional

You might want to take that advice yourself .

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Classic sola fide says justification is by faith alone, and works contribute nothing to our standing before God. Fair enough. But many modern presentations subtly go further and treat all post conversion obedience as mere evidence rather than participation.

This is extremely dangerous.

If we must actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ, then our will is not a passive bystander in the Christian life. You mentioned this as an act of humility. Humility isn't imputed on you magically. It's something that takes your willpower and is extremely difficult.

Getting out of your own way so that Christ can work within you is very hard and takes willpower to stop resisting Him.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
"Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."
"We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments."
"Faith without works is dead."


Works do not originate salvation. But if fruit is necessary for life, then it is not optional.

After conversion we still choose lust or purity, forgiveness or resentment and prayer or apathy. The idea that salvation is completely settled in a way that renders those choices irrelevant to our ultimate destiny or that we have no willpower is a higher criticism of sola fide that's wrong, but widely practiced.

Luther made it very clear that our behavior matters. Hyper grace movements, extreme Calvinists and easy believism push the complete opposite and they're gaining traction and popularity which concerns me.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

It is silly to think the Lord God advocated a form of cannibalism! It makes much more sense to realize that Christ was speaking metaphorically when he said in the same way He was never literally a door, a vine, or a letter of the Greek alphabet. Likewise He was never a shepherd in the literal sense (but did fulfill OT prophecy) or a physician.

---

Several disciples left after He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. They found this teaching too difficult to accept, calling it a "hard saying", resulting in a mass departure of followers.

The general instruction appears twice, but the Gospel of John records Jesus repeating the concept at least six times within a single discourse to emphasize its importance. Now, if you're a disciple listening to Jesus, and you were arguing among yourselves about whether He was being literal, and this was His response what would you say? Would this clarify that He is being metaphorical?

Why would they act like that if it was just a metaphor and symbolic?

Some protestants (Lutherans) believe its a sacrament. Its only in the past couple of hundred years that people gradually started seeing it as symbolic and of not much importance. Many denominations barely even practice it.

Even if you think its symbolic, there's something very wrong with juice/cracker and then throwing it in the trash on the way out. If its only supposed to be symbolic...then discarding it in the trash is also symbolic.

---

Reiterating its importance, and saying that the bread and wine literally become Christ's flesh and blood, are two very different things.

I get that to you it's lost its holiness and symbolism (which seems to motivate a lot of your posts on religious topics), but that is quite a different thing than literally believing you are eating literal flesh and blood - an idea that simply isn't supported in scripture.

---

Both of our views are supported by scripture. It can be argued from the text in multiple ways because it doesn't explicitly say "Its symbolic" nor does it say "its literal". Scripture is also even more difficult than just specific verses, its how it harmonizes with the rest of the bible, what the cultural context was etc.

We're both engaging in hermeneutics and we're relying on an authority to dictate the truth.
Many Protestants disagree with you and claim the exact same thing you did "that other views aren't supported in scripture".

You're relying on later reformed doctrine that is schismatic from mainline Protestantism and I'm relying on Orthodox.

---

If the disciples understood Jesus to be talking literally - why then would they instruct Gentile believers to abstain from blood?

If you believe Jesus was being literal, then do you believe that one MUST eat his flesh in order to be saved? Wouldn't that mean, then, that despite what one believes, salvation is entirely dependent on eating a piece of bread and drinking wine from communion/the Eucharist? Do you really think that's the gospel?

---

The command in Acts 15 is about ordinary animal blood, not sacramental participation in Christ. You've got gentiles eating with Jews who had Torah dietary conscience. Eating blood publicly would destroy unity in the Church.

Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
We are buried with Christ through baptism (Romans 6)
The bread is a participation (koinonia) in Christ's body (1 Corinthians 10:16)

These arent legal declarations. You're reading first century Christianity through later juridical and nominal categories.
The apostles were not making legal declarations about status before God. They were describing participation in divine life.

The ancient world did not separate symbol from reality the way modern nominalism does. This is a ancient vs modern mindset issue. Have you ever looked into this? It's a big deal, not something you can just brush off.

Ex. In the Roman world, offering incense before the emperor's statue was not seen as honoring a representation. It was honoring the emperor himself. Treaties were sealed with sacrificed animals because participants believed they mystically entered the covenant fate.

This kind of cultural assumption already existed. You have to read and understand it thought that lens. Not a different paradigm that shows up 1400+ years later.

---

The command in Acts does not limit it only to animal blood. They just say "blood". You're adding to their words. If eating the literal blood of Jesus was the absolute requirement of salvation (what you MUST believe if you believe in the literal interpretation), then it would behoove the apostles to make that very, very important distinction when making that command to the Gentile believers so as not to create any eternal life-altering confusion.

How can "baptism now save you", when the literal intepretation of John 6 shows that literal eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood is what saves you, and nothing else? You never answered this, as I've asked this repeatedly. Otherwise, you're calling Jesus a liar, when he says eating his flesh is a MUST for salvation, and that NOT eating him means "you have no life within you".

You would think that, given the absolute requirement of the practice of eating Jesus flesh for salvation, that it would have been declared in explicit terms throughout the New Testament. You would think that Peter and Paul would have mentioned it when they were asked how to be saved. You would think that the house of Cornelius, even after having been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and being water baptized, that the point would have been made that they still needed to eat literally Jesus' flesh and drink his blood, otherwise they weren't saved.

Your literal interpretation has a tremendous amount of problems. Instead of understanding it the way that Augustine said to understand it, that is, figuratively, you are left trying to scramble and twist yourself in order to keep your literal understanding. I can keep adding to your dilemma, like the thief on the cross, and how Judas Iscariot, who "ate Jesus' flesh" in the Last Supper yet who wasn't saved. It's just so obvious that Jesus' words weren't literal and that's consistent with the whole of Scripture. For God's sakes, man, Jesus himself even explained that it wasn't literal, that it was spiritual!

By the way... you agree that the symbolic interpretation is NOT a "new invention" of Protestantism, don't you?

---

The dilemma you're raising only works if the Eucharist is understood either as crude literal cannibalism or as mere symbolism. It's not strictly either, it's participation in Christ.

When Jesus speaks in John 6, He's not talking about chewing biological tissue. He's speaking about participation in His life. That's why He immediately says, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing."

Scripture never presents salvation as a single isolated moment. The New Testament consistently speaks of one reality from multiple angles: we are saved through faith, baptized into Christ, born of water and Spirit, united to His body, nourished by His flesh and blood. These are not rival requirements.

Around AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote on his way to martyrdom that those who deny the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ separate themselves from the Church. This isn't a medieval development. This is within living memory of the apostles.

If the apostles taught communion as merely symbolic, how did a direct student of John speak this strongly, this early, and without controversy from the wider Church?

Either Ignatius fundamentally misunderstood apostolic Christianity only a few years after the apostles, or the early Church understood the Eucharist as real participation in Christ from the beginning.

---

Ive never understood basing one's faith on thief on the cross, an example of the least common denominator possible. Protestants bring it up all the time as their forever get out of jail free card.

Catholic catechism of Course acknowledges that even someone that puts a bullet in their own head, can make it to Heaven. Wouldn't recommend that is how one lives their life, but God works in mysterious ways and all is possible with God.

---

It appears to me you either don't understand why protestants bring it up, or more likely than not, you're just not reading or mischaracterizing.

The point of the thief is not that it's some sort of get out of jail free card. I brought it up with you because it completely turns on its head the Catholic belief that certain sacraments (i.e. baptism and the Eucharist) are necessary for salvation. The thief completely disproves that.

---

ie get out of jail free card ie hey heres an example where Jesus did X and it therefore can be extrapolated wayyyyyyy over here. Dont worry. Thief on cross. Youre good.

Dangerous.

God can do anything. Hes God. God can admit someone who committed suicide to heaven and on and on.

Not a cornerstone go to argument to Build one of thousands of beliefs on

You nor anyone has any clue what Jesus saw in the thief on the cross' soul and his unique situation

---

Again, this is what I am talking about when I say the Catholics have all sorts of exceptions for the stipulations they place on salvation.

Yes, God requires X, unless he doesn't. The very idea that he requires humanity to adhere to certain standards, and then just waives those standards on a whim, means we not only have an inconsistent God, but one who is unfair when he parses out judgment.

Yeah, this guy's going to go to Hell because he didn't get baptized despite accepting the shed blood of Christ and living a life for Christ, but the thief on the cross? No biggie. I'll just waive that requirement.

Totally inconsistent with the God of scripture.

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Classic sola fide says justification is by faith alone, and works contribute nothing to our standing before God. Fair enough. But many modern presentations subtly go further and treat all post conversion obedience as mere evidence rather than participation.

This is extremely dangerous.

If we must actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ, then our will is not a passive bystander in the Christian life. You mentioned this as an act of humility. Humility isn't imputed on you magically. It's something that takes your willpower and is extremely difficult.

Getting out of your own way so that Christ can work within you is very hard and takes willpower to stop resisting Him.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
"Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."
"We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments."
"Faith without works is dead."


Works do not originate salvation. But if fruit is necessary for life, then it is not optional.

After conversion we still choose lust or purity, forgiveness or resentment and prayer or apathy. The idea that salvation is completely settled in a way that renders those choices irrelevant to our ultimate destiny or that we have no willpower is a higher criticism of sola fide that's wrong, but widely practiced.

Luther made it very clear that our behavior matters. Hyper grace movements, extreme Calvinists and easy believism push the complete opposite and they're gaining traction and popularity which concerns me.

---

This is you once again misstating the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not about "standing". It's about salvation. Works do affect our standing. We will be rewarded by God according to our works. What it does not affect is our salvation.

I think the confusion is you misinterpret what faith in Christ means for those of us who believe sola scriptura. Faith in Christ doesn't mean we are an inactive bystander. Indeed, faith in Christ means we do indeed actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ. That is what a relationship is all about - not merely being a bystander.

I am surprised at how much we actually agree on doctrine, but not on terminology. And I think it's because you don't correctly interpret the terminology, and attribute beliefs to certain protestants which they simply do not hold.

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Excellent post and point.


So many people ignore most of the Bible. They fail to notice how many people are depicted in the Bible as constantly failing, even including some of the great heroes of the Bible, like Jacob (who became Israel), Moses, Samson and David.

Our walk with Christ is a journey, not a short trip. And while we (oh so) slowly grow in faith and demonstrate that faith in our later works, our works are only tributes to Christ's work and have no merit on their own.

I would go so far as to warn us against taking pride in our obedience to the Law after we become Christians, as we sin far more than we realize, and so are in even more need of repentance and confession than before, lest we become proud and imagine we are better than our neighbors who have yet to accept the Lord's grace.

---

So true. Pride is the first of the 7 deadly sins (see Proverbs 6) and the first sin (leading to Luther's rebellion against God). Paul addressed this when he wrote in his letters about faith and works, in the passage on boasting only in Christ, and in II Corinthians in the passage about his thorn of the flesh. Again, it's all about humbly following Christ.

---

How did Luther rebel against God?

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Classic sola fide says justification is by faith alone, and works contribute nothing to our standing before God. Fair enough. But many modern presentations subtly go further and treat all post conversion obedience as mere evidence rather than participation.

This is extremely dangerous.

If we must actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ, then our will is not a passive bystander in the Christian life. You mentioned this as an act of humility. Humility isn't imputed on you magically. It's something that takes your willpower and is extremely difficult.

Getting out of your own way so that Christ can work within you is very hard and takes willpower to stop resisting Him.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
"Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."
"We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments."
"Faith without works is dead."


Works do not originate salvation. But if fruit is necessary for life, then it is not optional.

After conversion we still choose lust or purity, forgiveness or resentment and prayer or apathy. The idea that salvation is completely settled in a way that renders those choices irrelevant to our ultimate destiny or that we have no willpower is a higher criticism of sola fide that's wrong, but widely practiced.

Luther made it very clear that our behavior matters. Hyper grace movements, extreme Calvinists and easy believism push the complete opposite and they're gaining traction and popularity which concerns me.

---

This is you once again misstating the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not about "standing". It's about salvation. Works do affect our standing. We will be rewarded by God according to our works. What it does not affect is our salvation.

I think the confusion is you misinterpret what faith in Christ means for those of us who believe sola scriptura. Faith in Christ doesn't mean we are an inactive bystander. Indeed, faith in Christ means we do indeed actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ. That is what a relationship is all about - not merely being a bystander.

---

Sola scriptura?
You mean sola fide?

I'm affirming that we're not inactive bystanders…so I'm confused what you're actually disagreeing with me on? We appear to be on the same page.

I'm arguing against those who think we are just bystanders: which is hyper grace theology, extreme Calvinists and general people who have a misunderstanding on free will.

Here is Sproul talking about it:

“One of the greatest threats to the contemporary evangelical community is the resurgence of antinomianism—the hyper grace movement.” -R.C. Sproul pic.twitter.com/U6lAe8afG8

— 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ (@sola_chad) September 8, 2024

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Excellent post and point.


So many people ignore most of the Bible. They fail to notice how many people are depicted in the Bible as constantly failing, even including some of the great heroes of the Bible, like Jacob (who became Israel), Moses, Samson and David.

Our walk with Christ is a journey, not a short trip. And while we (oh so) slowly grow in faith and demonstrate that faith in our later works, our works are only tributes to Christ's work and have no merit on their own.

I would go so far as to warn us against taking pride in our obedience to the Law after we become Christians, as we sin far more than we realize, and so are in even more need of repentance and confession than before, lest we become proud and imagine we are better than our neighbors who have yet to accept the Lord's grace.

---

So true. Pride is the first of the 7 deadly sins (see Proverbs 6) and the first sin (leading to Luther's rebellion against God). Paul addressed this when he wrote in his letters about faith and works, in the passage on boasting only in Christ, and in II Corinthians in the passage about his thorn of the flesh. Again, it's all about humbly following Christ.

---

How did Luther rebel against God?

---

Freudian slip.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Classic sola fide says justification is by faith alone, and works contribute nothing to our standing before God. Fair enough. But many modern presentations subtly go further and treat all post conversion obedience as mere evidence rather than participation.

This is extremely dangerous.

If we must actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ, then our will is not a passive bystander in the Christian life. You mentioned this as an act of humility. Humility isn't imputed on you magically. It's something that takes your willpower and is extremely difficult.

Getting out of your own way so that Christ can work within you is very hard and takes willpower to stop resisting Him.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
"Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."
"We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments."
"Faith without works is dead."


Works do not originate salvation. But if fruit is necessary for life, then it is not optional.

After conversion we still choose lust or purity, forgiveness or resentment and prayer or apathy. The idea that salvation is completely settled in a way that renders those choices irrelevant to our ultimate destiny or that we have no willpower is a higher criticism of sola fide that's wrong, but widely practiced.

Luther made it very clear that our behavior matters. Hyper grace movements, extreme Calvinists and easy believism push the complete opposite and they're gaining traction and popularity which concerns me.

---

This is you once again misstating the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not about "standing". It's about salvation. Works do affect our standing. We will be rewarded by God according to our works. What it does not affect is our salvation.

I think the confusion is you misinterpret what faith in Christ means for those of us who believe sola scriptura. Faith in Christ doesn't mean we are an inactive bystander. Indeed, faith in Christ means we do indeed actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ. That is what a relationship is all about - not merely being a bystander.

---

Sola scriptura?
You mean sola fide?

I'm affirming that we're not inactive bystanders…so I'm confused what you're actually disagreeing with me on? We appear to be on the same page.

I'm arguing against those who think we are just bystanders: which is hyper grace theology, extreme Calvinists and general people who have a misunderstanding on free will.

Here is Sproul talking about it:

“One of the greatest threats to the contemporary evangelical community is the resurgence of antinomianism—the hyper grace movement.” -R.C. Sproul pic.twitter.com/U6lAe8afG8

— 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ (@sola_chad) September 8, 2024

---

RC Sproul and others have talked about this in greater detail.
One of the main points is that there are plenty of Christians who struggle for years with sin. It is the fact that they are struggling and fighting against their sin that is the difference. What RC is talking about is those who do not struggle with sin, but choose to engage & accept their sin. There is no struggle to fight the flesh or struggle to be free of sin... that is Carnal Christianity aka Hyper Grace theology.

An important difference between RC Sproul and the Roman Catholics is that the struggle against sin is not part of our salvation or purification. Jesus purifies our spirit and soul by the once and for all sacrifice on the cross. Sproul never agreed with the Catholic teaching that our spirit needs to be cleansed in Purgatory, because such blasphemy is in direct contrast to the Scriptures.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity. once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Excellent post and point.


So many people ignore most of the Bible. They fail to notice how many people are depicted in the Bible as constantly failing, even including some of the great heroes of the Bible, like Jacob (who became Israel), Moses, Samson and David.

Our walk with Christ is a journey, not a short trip. And while we (oh so) slowly grow in faith and demonstrate that faith in our later works, our works are only

---

Quote:

---

tributes to Christ's work and have no merit on their own.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and

I would go so far as to warn us against taking pride in our obedience to the Law after we become Christians, as we sin far more than we realize, and so are in even more need of repentance and confession than before, lest we become proud and imagine we are better than our neighbors who have yet to accept the Lord's grace.

---

So true. Pride is the first of the 7 deadly sins (see Proverbs 6) and the first sin (leading to Luther's rebellion against God). Paul addressed this when he wrote in his letters about faith and works, in the passage on boasting only in Christ, and in II Corinthians in the passage about his thorn of the flesh. Again, it's all about humbly following Christ.

---

How did Luther rebel against God?

---

Freudian slip.

---

Touche.

Of course, another Freudian slip could have been referring to the Catholic Church as God.

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually most people would love to earn salvation but it's impossible. God's perfect justice required us to be blameless and none of us are (Romans 6:23 & 3:23). That's why Jesus came to earth, lived a perfectly sinless life, and became the ultimate sacrifice. That's the central message of Christianity.

Turning to Christ for salvation or in resisting temptation are both acts of humility. Repenting of sin and turning from temptation requires us to acknowledge our fallen state and our need for Christ. That's humility and once again, Christ was the perfect example.

---

Classic sola fide says justification is by faith alone, and works contribute nothing to our standing before God. Fair enough. But many modern presentations subtly go further and treat all post conversion obedience as mere evidence rather than participation.

This is extremely dangerous.

If we must actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ, then our will is not a passive bystander in the Christian life. You mentioned this as an act of humility. Humility isn't imputed on you magically. It's something that takes your willpower and is extremely difficult.

Getting out of your own way so that Christ can work within you is very hard and takes willpower to stop resisting Him.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
"Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."
"We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments."
"Faith without works is dead."


Works do not originate salvation. But if fruit is necessary for life, then it is not optional.

After conversion we still choose lust or purity, forgiveness or resentment and prayer or apathy. The idea that salvation is completely settled in a way that renders those choices irrelevant to our ultimate destiny or that we have no willpower is a higher criticism of sola fide that's wrong, but widely practiced.

Luther made it very clear that our behavior matters. Hyper grace movements, extreme Calvinists and easy believism push the complete opposite and they're gaining traction and popularity which concerns me.

---

This is you once again misstating the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not about "standing". It's about salvation. Works do affect our standing. We will be rewarded by God according to our works. What it does not affect is our salvation.

I think the confusion is you misinterpret what faith in Christ means for those of us who believe sola scriptura. Faith in Christ doesn't mean we are an inactive bystander. Indeed, faith in Christ means we do indeed actively repent, flee sin, endure, forgive and remain in Christ. That is what a relationship is all about - not merely being a bystander.

---

Sola scriptura?
You mean sola fide?

I'm affirming that we're not inactive bystanders…so I'm confused what you're actually disagreeing with me on? We appear to be on the same page.

I'm arguing against those who think we are just bystanders: which is hyper grace theology, extreme Calvinists and general people who have a misunderstanding on free will.

Here is Sproul talking about it:

“One of the greatest threats to the contemporary evangelical community is the resurgence of antinomianism—the hyper grace movement.” -R.C. Sproul pic.twitter.com/U6lAe8afG8

— 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ (@sola_chad) September 8, 2024

---

RC Sproul and others have talked about this in greater detail.
One of the main points is that there are plenty of Christians who struggle for years with sin. It is the fact that they are struggling and fighting against their sin that is the difference. What RC is talking about is those who do not struggle with sin, but choose to engage & accept their sin. There is no struggle to fight the flesh or struggle to be free of sin... that is Carnal Christianity aka Hyper Grace theology.

An important difference between RC Sproul and the Roman Catholics is that the struggle against sin is not part of our salvation or purification. Jesus purifies our spirit and soul by the once and for all sacrifice on the cross. Sproul never agreed with the Catholic teaching that our spirit needs to be cleansed in Purgatory, because such blasphemy is in direct contrast to the Scriptures.

---

"One of the main points is that there are plenty of Christians who struggle for years with sin."

So on point. We consider the apostle Paul himself in Romans 7:14-25, as well as 1 Timothy 1:15-16. Present tense, though these writings are years into his extremely fruitful walk with Christ!

Fre3dombear: "Not your brother"
We both follow Jesus, and according to Matthew 12:50, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:21 we are therefore brothers. If this offends you, ask yourself why.

Fre3dombear: "weak minded call someone else names and project the behavior you wished they had into them and ask them to defend is too sophomoric to do more than chuckle."
What you did there was throw insults while falsely pretending I did so. That is the behavior I know you are better than.

I do not bear false witness.