BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

You just don't get it. You are doing EXACTLY what the Bible, the book you keep sourcing, tells not to do.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again" (Matthew 7:2)

Sad thing is rather than follow the example Christ gave us, you will say that is not what it really means, blaming some 4th Century Greek word or something like that.

You have been THE most judgmental Christian I have ever met and I have met some. You take the cake. You are SO convinced that you are right. You remind me of the following parable.

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other peopleCATHOLICS, robbers, evildoers, adulterersor even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."



Maybe you can get together with your Protestant brethren and go downtown to beat up queers. Burn Pope Franicis effigies. Good sport, right? Good "real" Christian behavior. After all they are not entitled to any of God's love or attention.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

- No, repenting and believing are from the heart. They're not performative actions like sacraments, which is what I was clearly referring to. If you can't comprehend these kinds of basic things, then you make it very difficult to have an intelligent, rational discussion with.

- do you know what happens to babies or 14th century Native Americans? Since you don't, stop asserting what you don't know.

- Jesus and his apostles NEVER designated the refusal of the Eucharist as a "mortal sin", or any other act of disobedience for that matter, which would negate everything they said about salvation. If such sins existed, then the fact this is nowhere explicitly and clearly mentioned would be a devastating oversight by God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture and the apostles. "Mortal sin" is exactly the kind of man-made distortion of the gospel I was talking about.

- It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

- Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

- The demons believe "God is one", not in Jesus for their salvation. It's plainly obvious to any intelligent, rational person that believing in Jesus for salvation was an offer for mankind, not demons. This is just a stupid argument that you keep repeating without actually thinking about what you're arguing.

- doing the will of the Father is to "believe in whom he has sent". If "believing" meant doing everything the Father wills, then none of us could be called "believers" because we all fail.

There is no having a rational discussion with you, either you agree with whatever you say or we are demons or whatever label you come up with today.

Than in the same breath you condemn Francis for working with "queers".
But, i am sure you are right shunning and telling them they are wrong and going to Hell is the best way to bring them back to God's fold. People love being told how wrong they are and want someone like you pointing it out. That will bring them back to Gods word.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

Judas sin was of despair, that he was beyond redemption. Even he would have been forgiven if je asked, but you have to ask. You Protestants seem to think it is a one time shot. You have this concept that because Christ dord once for us, it is a rubberstamp. You to have to ask for forgiveness. Judas believed his sin wss too great for forgiveness and killed himself. He could have been in a state of Grave at the Last Supper, the two are separate.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

Judas sin was of despair, that he was beyond redemption. Even he would have been forgiven if je asked, but you have to ask. You Protestants seem to think it is a one time shot. You have this concept that because Christ dord once for us, it is a rubberstamp. You to have to ask for forgiveness. Judas believed his sin wss too great for forgiveness and killed himself. He could have been in a state of Grave at the Last Supper, the two are separate.

---

God knew Judas would not repent and believe, because Jesus said he was "the son of perdition" and was "doomed to destruction".

Your conception of salvation not being a "rubber stamp" because you have to ask for forgiveness just doesn't make any sense. Are you really saying that after every sin, if a believer doesn't ask for forgiveness, they're not saved anymore? If so, then you simply don't understand the gospel.

And you, like other RC's here, are still running away from your own literal interpretation of John chapter 6. If Jesus said that one HAS eternal life and that Jesus WILL raise them on the last day if they eat his flesh, which Judas obviously did in the Last Supper - then if Judas was not saved, Jesus' statement is false. There's just no way around this.

The answer clearly is that Jesus' words were NOT literal. "Eating his flesh" meant something other than physically eating communion bread and drinking communion wine. It meant something that Judas did NOT do, even though he physically ate the communion bread. And it meant something the house of Cornelius DID DO, even though they did not take communion yet. And it resolves all the issues I brought up about the literal intepretation (eating human flesh and drinking blood being a sin, Jesus referring to the wine as "fruit of the vine", the apostles commanding Gentile believers to not consume blood, etc).

^^^Why and how this is eludes you RC's is beyond me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It's funny reading the quotes. I guess like when Jesus said time and time again "this IS my flesh" and then they John 6:67 themselves and say repeatedly here these words are too hard and walk away from Jesus

Those words of Jesus they DEFINITELY do not believe

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism.

---

Yes, we know.

Ecumenism is straight from the Devil.

---

Let's see what Webster says:

ecumenism
noun
ecumenism e-ky-m-ni-zm
i-also e-ky- or e-ky-me-

: ecumenical principles and practices especially as shown among religious groups (such as Christian denominations)

ECUMENISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


And from there, the definition of 'ecumenical'


ecumenical
adjective
ecumenical e-ky-me-ni-kl
-ky-


1a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
an ecumenical service

b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

2: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
an ecumenical perspective

ECUMENICAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So BusyTarpDuster contends that Satan is promoting Christian unity or cooperation, applying Christianity to a worldwide influence or application.

Pretty sure I disagree there.

---

Of course you disagree. You have no sense of the truth any more than these Roman Catholics do.

---

I believe the Bible, and I believe words have meaning. I also find it impossible to believe Satan would do anything that could lead people to Christ.

---

Fascinating given Our Lady of Guadalupe, Fatima, Lourdes, the Shroud. Many protestant Chrietians here have said these are all works of the devil yet habe brought MILLIONS to Christ and the Catholic faith

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

That seems to be a theme. Acknowledge you are saved and it is all done. Eat the Eucharist once and you are saved. There is no journey.

---

Where can I donate cuz this sounds awesome and so easy. Dont Even have to work out your faith at all.

Sign me up!!!!!

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

The clear, logical answer is that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said "you must eat my flesh". Obviously, whatever the house of Cornelius did - as did the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke chapter 7 - they had "eaten his flesh" in the sense that Jesus meant. And it was not the Eucharist.

---

Are you 12?

---

lol. This quote you quoted

So the people rhat heard Jesus say this and were so grossed out by it turned and walked away (John 6:67) even though Jesus put those very words in their ears

And this is their interpretation? lol. Wow those poor fools that John 6:67d. If only they Hadnt misinterpreted Jesus' repeated words rhey heard first hand. If only theyd had this NEW interpretation 2000 years later theyd have been saved

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

What you're essentially arguing, then, is "Roman Catholicism isn't consistent, and we accept that." But if your church is to be consistent, then according to Jesus' literal words, the literal eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh and blood in communion (in the RC view) IS a one-time salvivic event, and it had to be so for Judas. Denying this would be denying Jesus' exact words:

• What Jesus literally said: "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS eternal life and I WILL raise him on the last day".

• What Roman Catholics say: "NO, someone who eats his flesh and drinks his blood may NOT have eternal life, and Jesus might not raise him on the last day."

You just can't get around this. You want to dismiss it as a "gotcha game", but that doesn't solve your huge inconsistency problem, nor does it get around that you're denying Jesus' exact words.

**** Here's the solution: "eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood isn't literal. It's meaning is tied to belief in Jesus. Even though Judas Iscariot ate the Eucharist meal, he did not "eat Jesus' flesh" in the way Jesus really meant because he did not believe. And whatever the house of Cornelius did, even though they did NOT eat the Eucharist meal, they DID "eat Jesus' flesh" in the way that Jesus meant, because they believed. It would also solve all your other problems with your literal interpretation:

• It was a sin to eat human flesh and drink blood ==> not if they weren't really doing that because it wasn't literal
• Jesus still called the wine "the fruit of the vine" ==> because that's what it still was
• The apostles in Acts 15 commanded Gentile believers to not consume blood ==> because the Eucharist does not actually involve consuming real blood.

This is all just so easy to understand, if one would just strive for what's actually true rather than just accept what your church tells you to believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

What you're essentially arguing, then, is "Roman Catholicism isn't consistent, and we accept that."

---

No.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

You know, cherrypicking the Bible is easy.

Matthew 7:1720 (NLT), Jesus says:

Quote:

---

"A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions"

---

So, the Bible is saying that your actions matter. You cannot say you are saved with your heart and NOT do good actions. Let's hear how that is not how that should be interpreted. Or some other platitude to why you are right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

You know, cherrypicking the Bible is easy.

Matthew 7:1720 (NLT), Jesus says:

Quote:

---

"A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions"

---

So, the Bible is saying that your actions matter. You cannot say you are saved with your heart and NOT do good actions. Let's hear how that is not how that should be interpreted. Or some other platitude to why you are right.

---

As usual, you aren't understanding the argument, or what Scripture is saying. The argument is NOT that our actions don't matter. The argument is that we are not justified by our actions, but rather we are justified by what's in our heart, which is what Romans 10:10 is saying. This isn't "cherry-picking" from the Bible, it's correctly understanding it. Your verse, Matthew 7:17-20, is not talking about justification at all. You're just not reading and thinking correctly.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

gotta ask...

Fre3dombear: " Many protestant Chrietians here have said these are all works of the devil"

'Many'? I only saw BusyTarpDuster post that claim. I think you are exaggerating and then some, sir.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

And repent

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

Neither Scripture nor I said that "your heart justifies you".

But as Scripture clearly states, it is with your heart that you believe, and that's how you're justified. That clearly means that justification does not happen the way you and your Church states, that is with both belief and works.

"But it (justification) is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness." - No. It is by believing in Jesus. You evidently don't really understand the gospel. And neither do those who supported this comment, apparently.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear: " Many protestant Chrietians here have said these are all works of the devil"

'Many'? I only saw BusyTarpDuster post that claim. I think you are exaggerating and then some, sir.

---

If I am truly the only one, then that is a sad, sad fact that doesn't speak well of the state that professed Christians here are in.

Do YOU believe that those apparitions, which purportedly commanded a church be built in Mary's honor and to spread devotion to HER "Immaculate Heart" all over the world ISN'T from the Devil?

For one thing, I believe you need to work on your grammar.

Also, a little anger management might be good for you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear: " Many protestant Chrietians here have said these are all works of the devil"

'Many'? I only saw BusyTarpDuster post that claim. I think you are exaggerating and then some, sir.

---

I don't recall who. Multiple suggested it but hadnt realized that was a prevalent perception

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

Neither Scripture nor I said that "your heart justifies you".

But as Scripture clearly states, it is with your heart that you believe, and that's how you're justified. That clearly means that justification does not happen the way you and your Church states, that is with both belief and works.

---

Scripture also says that we're justified by works and not by faith alone. I would recommend this article if you're interested in how Catholics harmonize the two passages.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear: " Many protestant Chrietians here have said these are all works of the devil"

'Many'? I only saw BusyTarpDuster post that claim. I think you are exaggerating and then some, sir.

---

I don't recall who. Multiple suggested it but hadnt realized that was a prevalent perception

---

It's not a majority opinion, very much the opposite from what I can see. On the thread about the Shroud, the noisy skeptics are mostly the atheists and one lab coat fetishist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

Neither Scripture nor I said that "your heart justifies you".

But as Scripture clearly states, it is with your heart that you believe, and that's how you're justified. That clearly means that justification does not happen the way you and your Church states, that is with both belief and works.

---

Scripture also says that we're justified by works and not by faith alone. I would recommend this article if you're interested in how Catholics harmonize the two passages.

---

does it? In James, it says faith without works is dead..

Jesus is the vine and you are the branch grafted in by faith. Thru Christ, you are rooted in good soil and the fruit naturally appears.

Works are a byproduct of true faith, those who claim faith without works is like the fig tree with no fruit.

Works are not required, they are the natural result of true faith. Paul clearly states this in corinthians.

The fruit of the spirit is much like the fruit in your garden. An apple tree doesnt need to try harder, a strawberry plant doesnt need to think about growing..

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

Neither Scripture nor I said that "your heart justifies you".

But as Scripture clearly states, it is with your heart that you believe, and that's how you're justified. That clearly means that justification does not happen the way you and your Church states, that is with both belief and works.

---

Scripture also says that we're justified by works and not by faith alone. I would recommend this article if you're interested in how Catholics harmonize the two passages.

---

does it? In James, it says faith without works is dead..

Jesus is the vine and you are the branch grafted in by faith. Thru Christ, you are rooted in good soil and the fruit naturally appears.

Works are a byproduct of true faith, those who claim faith without works is like the fig tree with no fruit.

Works are not required, they are the natural result of true faith. Paul clearly states this in corinthians.

The fruit of the spirit is much like the fruit in your garden. An apple tree doesnt need to try harder, a strawberry plant doesnt need to think about growing..

---

It does, if you read further on in James 2.

Plants may not think about growing, but any real gardener has seen how they try. And contra some interpretations of Scripture, we know that a plant is a plant whether it grows or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

---

I'm pretty sure that bible tells us that we have to REPENT, BELIEVE, and be BAPTIZED. That sounds like we have to do something. Even if you reject baptism (although that notion is anti-biblical), repenting and believing are doing something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

=> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

---

Are you trying to argue that God can't grant exceptions? What about babies never baptized? What about 14th century Native Americans that never heard the Gospel? Why didn't God list exceptions when he talked about having faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

---

Any time someone commits a mortal sin, they choose to separate themselves from God. They send themselves to hell.

And that's what Hell is a complete separation from God.

Perfection Another bad eisegesis of the scriptures here. Jesus is NOT commanding us to be sinlessly flawless in every moment. He is calling us to be whole to become fully what God created us for.

Please look at the greater context of this chapter, which is the Sermon on the Mount, and specifically the last section of the chapter. Jesus is telling us to LOVE our enemies. Matt 5:48 is NOT about sinlessness. It's about LOVING like God.

BTW Mary was and is completely sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

---

Judas would have had eternal life, if he didn't throw it away and betray Jesus.

Your problem here is the false and unbiblical OSAS.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

The demons believe. I guess they don't go to hell.

Belief in Jesus is DOING the will of his Father Matt 7:21.

---

It's always amazing to me how when it suits Roman Catholicism, the argument is "those are Jesus' exact words!" but when Jesus says "you must be perfect" or "you must eat my flesh", since it puts RC doctrine in a quandary, the argument goes to "that's not what he really meant".

Regarding Judas Iscariot, you're simply running away from the fact that if he ate Jesus' flesh and drank his blood, but did not have eternal life, then Jesus words were falsified.

---

There's no quandary from the RC point of view. The Eucharist puts life within you unless and until you turn into an apostate like Judas Iscariot. It's just common sense.

Now from the magical OSAS point of view...yeah, that's a quandary.

---

It has nothing to do with a "magical OSAS view", it has everything to do with Jesus' literal words. Which you accept in one sense when it suits you, and deny in another sense when that suits you.

If Judas ate the Eucharist meal, yet ultimately did not have eternal life, and will not be raised by Jesus on the last day, then Jesus' words are falsified in John chapter 6. It IS a quandary for RC - that is, if they are willing to be honest about it and not squirm around it like you are trying to do.

---

Again, Catholics don't see communion as a one-time salvific event. We see it as a means of grace whereby we are sanctified unto salvation. You see sanctification and justification as wholly separate concepts. Catholics disagree. That's really all that needs to be said. Plenty of non-Catholics understand it even if they don't agree, but you refuse to understand it because you're preoccupied with these endless gotcha games.

---

Regarding your view on justification vs sanctification:

Consider what Paul said in Romans 10:10 - "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Do you see that God says justification happens entirely from what's in a person's heart and from belief? Not from any works or performance of any sacrament?

---

Consider Matthew 16, where the rich man asks what he must do to have eternal life: "Jesus said to him, If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me."

Is this the magic formula, or was Jesus lying?

Of course you will say that selling one's possessions is an expression of the belief in one's heart. The same is true of the sacraments, and to the same purpose of perfection.

---

Yes, this was the magic formula at that time, to follow the commandments perfectly, thus being without sin, in order to be justified to eternal life - because Jesus had not died on the cross and paid for sin yet. They were still under the Law. Jesus was trying to make the people realize that under the Law, there is no way a person is going to be perfect, so that they needed a Savior.

Jesus death and resurrection brought on the new law of grace, which is the gospel that Paul was tasked to spread to the world.

Now answer the question: do you see that God is saying through Paul that justification happens from what's in a person's heart, NOT from what they do? Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong?

---

I see it saying we're justified because we believed. I don't see the "entirely" part.

If you say there are fish in the pond and I go and catch one, you'd be right to say I succeeded because I believed you. But I still had to go cast a line.

---

You also see it saying we're justified with the heart.

It doesn't need to say "entirely". If it says that one is justified with the heart through belief, then clearly justification is not contingent upon anything outside of the heart, such as our action; nor would it make sense for us to be justified in addition through our action if we were already justified with our heart of belief.

Your fish in the pond example completely misses the point - with your heart you're justified, not with your action. That's what the verse clearly says. You did not go cast a line with your heart. You only believed with your heart. You're trying to force your works-based justification into a verse that clearly says the opposite. There just isn't a way around this without being dishonest or in denial of what's right in front of you.

---

Neither your heart, nor your works, nor anything else of yours justifies you. But it is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness.

---

"But it (justification) is by believing that we receive God's grace when we ask his forgiveness." - No. It is by believing in Jesus. You evidently don't really understand the gospel. And neither do those who supported this comment, apparently.

---

You misunderstood me. Yes, it is by believing in Jesus. I just meant that's how we receive God's grace.