Do Catholics or Orthodox know how they're saved? With Evangelicals they'll tell you that you have to believe Jesus died for your sins, but I've never heard a Catholic or Orthodox give a succinct explanation like this. They're explanation is usually just;
>Be baptized (maybe, depends on who you ask), then do a lot of good works (how many???) and maybe you'll be saved

>>17785806 (OP)
Sounds like Evangelicals don't believe that God will judge them and they can do whatever they want as long as they believe in Christ. They are one step away from smashing chickens against a wall.

>>17785806 (OP)
It's because it's a process, like how an acorn doesn't become a full-grown oak at first contact with water and dirt.

>>17785846
You're either saved or you're not saved. In your view how someone get to heaven?

Well…

Google “word on fire hope”

>>17785806 (OP)
Neither the Catholic Church nor Jesus himself has the authority to declare who gets saved and who dies.

That authority is for the father alone, and all we can do is have faith in him, do his will, and pray in tears that sinners would turn from their ways and repent

>>17785854
>you're either saved or not
Orthodox and Catholics do not believe this is correct.
As I understand it, that's because it simply interferes with free will. Didn't Judas believe Jesus was his savior?

>>17785862
I've never heard of a predestinationist Catholic before (besides Augustine, I guess).

>>17785862
>Neither the Catholic Church nor Jesus himself has the authority to declare who gets saved
That's what the canonization of saints is.
>and all we can do is have faith in him, do his will, and pray in tears that sinners would turn from their ways and repent
So you don't have a definitive way to get saved, just things that will maybe increase the chances?

>>17785872
>Orthodox and Catholics do not believe this is correct.
Yes they do. They believe heaven and hell are eternal.

>>17785829
You have a point in noting that some Protestants do not put enough emphasis on good works, but the Catholic position that one must perform a non-specific amount of good works is unsettling. Instances of Catholics committing self-harm seem to be the product of this thinking, as they can never be sure he has impressed God enough, so they must continue to go to the extreme of bodily harm as a way to hopefully absolve themselves as they live in fear.

>>17785876
The canonization of the saints means that they were saved, but this is a decision made by God, not the Church

The qualification for sainthood is that their veneration must be able to produce at least 2 miracles after their deaths. This is how we know that they believe in Jesus and Jesus shared his glory with them, as he promised

>>17785883
I thought the Orthodox don’t?

>>17785885
>Catholic position that one must perform a non-specific amount of good works is unsettling
You fool!
Absolutely buffoon!
You dimwitted simpleton!

The Church do not tell you that you must perform a specific amount of good works because it upholds the idea that doing good works is not work at all. Doing good works is what we are all meant to do, and not doing good is the corruption that has fallen upon our design

Do be perfect is to be in perfect submission to God's will. And God's will is to be a being of infinite love. It is not love to do good deeds as a matter of seeking good boy points

>>17785894
Maybe some liberal priest doesn't, but that's been the historic position

>>17785854
>In your view how someone get to heaven?
I'm sure he would agree that it's through repentance, which is itself a process, as he implied. Jesus helps you, but you have to choose it continuously.

Otherwise it sounds to me very transactional. "I did my part God, now you do yours." But how can we "earn" immortality?
A million good deeds won't stack up against infinite goodness.

Pagans viewed spirituality in transactions - accountable in a sense, but it's also how magicians, alchemists - and even plain old scientists - view it today.
The devil has "deals" and "contracts", but God has gifts.

God also has covenants and wages of sin and so on which are transactional in a sense but don't think about that.

>>17785896
>be in perfect submission to God's will
Do you believe that when a man has attained this state, regardless of how many good works he has yet to accomplish, he now holds a ticket to Heaven? Because if not, he would still be in a state of existential uncertainty.

>>17785883
>>17785898
The phrase in question "you're saved or your not" doesn't refer to the afterlife, it refers to this one.
Orthodox and Catholics don't believe it's over until the fat lady sings.

>>17785906
>I'm sure he would agree that it's through repentance
So what about baptism, confirmation, mass, etc? And how much repentance is required? Salvation is binary, so there has to be a specific amount you have to repent.

>>17785912
When I say "you're saved or you're not" I mean "You either end up in heaven or hell". Catholics and Orthodox believe once you're in either one you're stuck forever.

>>17785806 (OP)
Literally just live a sacramental life. Get baptized, receive communion, confess your sins, perform good works. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Flee from sin and immorality. That's it.

The whole "works vs. grace" argument has always seemed to be a silly exercise in semantics. Yes, no matter what you do you'll never be able to merit salvation on your own, which is why the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. And yes, you can't just call yourself a Christian and continue to live a sinful, immoral, selfish life thinking "Hey if I don't sin, Jesus died for nothing!" You need both good works, and faith in the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

Honestly, prots and catlickers should stop arguing over minor theological differences and focus on solving the apostasy crisis going on

>>17785911
Heaven is not a reward for good works. It is a choice as to whether you want to be with God or not.

Good works is not a work
Your life is not a math problem where doing good is +1 and doing bad is -1.
This is a case of design where God made you for a specific purpose, and you were perfectly suited for it. But instead, you acted like PC that keeps on crashing.
You are not going to be praised for crashing less than your total run time. You have to be destroyed because lots of vital transactions are going to be entrusted to you.

>>17785920
>receive communion
How many times do you have to receive it?
>confess your sins
Every single one? Or just mortal ones that you can remember?
>perform good works
How many?

Also, is that list exhaustive? And where did you get it from?

>>17785806 (OP)
Thats kind of the right answer though. No body really knows what happens when you die, so they are being honest, but they don't want to right our say, "i don't know", so they come up with some "maybe" scenarios for you.

>>17785933
It is free will
If you don't want it, don't.

You don't go to your lover's house thinking that if you go there enough times, she will marry you
You go there because you want to be there with her

Same goes for the Church.
The Church's duty is to give you the sacraments and make you as close to Jesus as possible. But it is a matter of whether you want to be with Jesus or not

>>17785937
>No body really knows what happens when you die,
Actually in the Bible it says the following:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
(Hebrews 9:27-28)

>>17785938
That doesn't answer my questions.

How many times is receiving communion required?
Does every single sin have to be confessed, or just mortal ones you can remember?
How many good works are required to be performed?
Where does this list come from and is it exhaustive?

>>17785920
Assuming you believe in paedobaptism, what if someone does all of those other things, but is never baptized because his parents lied to him about being baptized as a baby?
Assuming you believe in transubstantiation, what if someone does all of those other things, but has no priest to transform the bread and wine into flesh and blood for him?
Do the people in those situations still make the cut?

>Honestly, prots and catlickers should stop arguing over minor theological differences and focus on solving the apostasy crisis going on
I think you're right. We spend way too much time arguing about these doctrines, but I do find it engaging. I wonder if there are any /his/ lurkers from non-Christian cultures who are under the impression Protestants and Catholics are still bitter enemies in real life like it's the 18th century. If /his/ was the primary exposure one had to Christians, I wouldn't blame one for thinking that.

>>17785947
I told you, it is not counted.
Numbers do not matter to God. It is your heart that he looks at
You do it if you want to be Jesus, and that's it

If you are counting it, then your heart may not be genuine

>>17785933
>>17785947
If you're asking how many times you have to do something, you're already lost. There isn't any set number of good works you must do, no amount of times you must receive communion.

You should have the desire in your heart to do good works, because it's the right thing to do regardless of wanting to please God or receive salvation. Feed the hungry, tend to the elderly, make a person smile, not because you're trying to check off a list, but because it's the right to do. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you were full of love, you'd do these things without even thinking as if it were breathing.

>Where does the list come from
Read the Bible.

>>17785960
>>17785964
The post I was replying to said those were the things to do to get saved (ie "live a sacramental life"). If that's not what you believe then tell me, what must someone do to be saved?

>>17785971
We already told you what you must do to be saved. If you don't like the answer, then I don't know what to tell you. Love is not a checklist of tasks you must complete. Life is not a game with objectives to fulfill and levels to sequentially pass through.

>>17785984
NTA but "Love is not a checklist of tasks you must complete." is all well and good so long as failure to love doesn't result in burning and/or death. But if burning and/or death is on the table, then a checklist is a nice thing to have around.

>>17785917
>baptism confirmation mass
These are checkpoints that you pass, as you repent, and tools which help you to continue repenting. But you have the freedom to ignore them. They can damn you if you use them as an excuse to grow sinful, and we've all seen christians grow sinful despite church attendance. Why would God reward that?
At the time of judgement, a binary decision is made, but it's in God's hands. If it depended on a concrete set of good deeds, it would be in ours.
Again, "quantity" and even "quality" cannot ever measure up when you're talking about an infinite reward - and we have no idea the lasting effects of even small sins. So the only appropriate Judge is God, and our works can't tell us anything about what he'll say.

>saved or not
Thank you for clarifying.
I don't know either faith's position on hell's permanence but it seems to me that because they see evil as just "the absence of good" - in other words, that it's existence is relative as opposed to objective - hell will end.
Don't know what that means for the souls there.

>>17786014
If you show remorse, feel guilty, and confess and repent, then you really cannot be condemned

Everyone is a failure. Not everyone recognizes that, though

>>17785806 (OP)

>>17786014
Perhaps then you should ask yourself "Why do I lack love to such a degree that I cannot envision loving my neighbor without step-by-step instructions?"

>>17786023
>Everyone is a failure
Weird how *everyone* is a failure but we're supposed to believe that God, the ultimate source of all these billions of certain failures, is perfect.
>>17786028
I don't lack love by my own standards, but if I did I don't see how asking myself why would necessarily be of much help for solving the problem. Maybe such people just have a neurological deficit.

>>17786036
Christ, dude

God already came in the flesh and showed everyone what it means to be good.
Everyone's duty is to recognize that he is right and we are wrong

Those who reject him have much to explain and it is never good

>>17785885
That seems wrong to me. I wouldn't be worried about a specific set of steps or a specific number of things. Be kind, live the way Jesus instructed us, accept you are a sinner and repent. It's up to God after that. There's no checkbox or list in Catholicism that says "as long as you do these things you will receive salvation".

>>17785984
>We already told you what you must do to be saved
No you haven't, all you've said is that the father decides. I'm asking what does the individual person have to do to go from being damned to saved.

>>17786014
I think it was you who said earlier that one of your worries is that the uncertainty behind salvation drives people to spiritually unhealthy extremes like castration and self-flagellation.

But it also drives people to seek false certainty, which is less violent, but no less dangerous or mentally unhealthy. This is how the devil manifests as an "angel of light".
I think the truth is that we just have to deal with uncertainty as part of good religion. It's faith, not knowledge. We know our traditions, and we know Jesus, but we don't know our destiny, nor God the Father, nor even the Spirit (actually, do we? we know it's effects. would like to hear anyone's input there.)

St Augustine in his work "City of God" declares that one enters heaven through the grace of God and who earns that grace is only known by God and cannot be "engineered". So, be a good Christian, love God (for that's how good loves himself) and do good deeds within the church.

>>17785806 (OP)
https://youtu.be/OwPxzSFKiVQ?si=04djF418YEQAiviL

>>17786088
To "go from being damned to being saved", as in, to move in the right direction, you have to participate in the church. There are concrete steps to take, like attending services, getting baptized and studying the faith, and fasting and praying - and there is a general attitude to cultivate, which is simply love.
All of this is summarized as repentance - ongoing, sincere work.

To keep you from losing your mind and castrating yourself - or, just as dangerous, thinking you've found your mind and converting to something more "practical" like materialist atheism, freemasonry, judaism, or hinduism - God will send you the spirit.

>He hurt a person! I'm allowed to torment him.
That's what demons say. There inside your mind torturing you because your hurt somebody.

>>17786178
No, you just have to fear God. The fear of God will guide you through the correct path. Fear God and you'll be wise.

>>17786178
>you have to participate in the church. There are concrete steps to take, like attending services, getting baptized and studying the faith, and fasting and praying
Ok great, so please answer my original questions >>17785933

How much do you have to fast? How much do you have to pray? How much do you have to study the faith?

What are the differences between the church and the Pharisees of Christ's day?

>>17786221
>How much do you have to fast? How much do you have to pray? How much do you have to study the faith?
How much do you want to please God?

>>17786218
The fear of God is to not dare do evil to others. Not even in secret in your mind. Nothing can be hidden from God. God will judge you for what you think about.

>>17786229
Can you not answer my question with another question?

>>17786088
To go from being dammed to being saved you have to regret all evils you have done to others. You must admit your guilt and you must beging to fear the judgement of God and not do evil any longer. Bow down to him and beg him for mercy.

Humble yourself before God to gain his favor by fasting, mourning, weeping and laying on the floor. Attone for your sin. With a broken heart and a crushed spirit seek his forgiveness. Feel bad.

>>17786247
How much you fast and pray depends on how much you want to please God.

>>17786257
>gain his favor by fasting, mourning, weeping and laying on the floor.
>Feel bad.
Blessed are the clinically depressed, for they shall obtain mercy

>>17786218
Fearing God implies obeying him, which means participating in all of the stuff I mentioned.

>>17786257
>Humble yourself before God to gain his favor by fasting, mourning, weeping and laying on the floor. Attone for your sin. With a broken heart and a crushed spirit seek his forgiveness. Feel bad.
So baptism, confirmation, mass, confession to a priest, etc isn't necessary?

>>17786263
My question is how much is enough to be saved?

>>17786290
>So baptism, confirmation, mass, confession to a priest, etc isn't necessary?
No.
>My question is how much is enough to be saved?

None of it is enough to be saved. That is not why you do those things. To be saved you have to not do evil things until the day you die. Do good and avoid evil whenever you can.

All who do evil will go to hell, if you don't want to go to hell don't do evil. To know what God considers evil you must read the law and the prophets.

>>17786273
Church is not necessary.

>>17786247
>>17786221
check out my post here (>>17786021)

It isn't a known factor. It's relative to how much you can do in the correct disposition. But if you have the correct disposition, it will be accomplished.

The reason it can't be known is discussed above, but we can illustrate it quickly in another way - say for example that in order to get into heaven, all you had to do was go to church 7 times.
What happens if you learn this, start going, but get in a car crash and die before the 7th visit?
What happens if you go to church 7 times, but commit a bunch of evil acts between and after?

You are saved in the afterlife, by undergoing transformation in this life, which lasts as long as your life lasts.
That transformation obviously isn't happening if you accept God, but then betray him, and you don't repent. Which is always possible, as long as you're alive and have free will.

>>17786088
>I'm asking what does the individual person have to do to go from being damned to saved.

JUST. CHOOSE. CHRIST

You keep on asking the wrong questions, man
The question is not what you should do.
The question is what a person who chooses Christ does.

You choose Christ first. Everything else is just the fruit of it

Salvation comes FIRST,
And then you act with grace.

The Seeds come first before the Fruit.

>>17786321
>tranime

>>17786310
The spirit blows where it wills - but if you know where it is, and you're able to go, then yes, it's necessary.
Otherwise, you don't fear God.
What do you have to say in response to this quote:
>Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
And how do you respond to the stuff in Corinthians 12 about the body of the church?

>>17786339
The body of the church is the human body, SPIRIT DWELLS WITHIN. It really is that simple. The only church, that Christ went into was to flip tables

>>17786402
Not him but you are wrong
First off, Christ went into multiple temples. He only flipped tables in the main one.

Secondly, the Church IS flesh.
It's made by the flesh and blood of the apostles and the saints who were married. It was not made niliwilly by some guy who read manuals.
It's a meticulous succession tested and tempered by fire

>>17785806 (OP)
>Do Catholics or Orthodox know how they're saved?
How does that even work? Do you just look around someday "yeah, good enough" and that's it?
If you're Catholic, you live as a Catholic, and you'll be saved. Protestants from what I understand believe in the process of conversion, so they'll experience this huge religious awakening, and live that for the rest of their lives, hence all the churches that services are just people telling other people how they converted and nothing else after that, here in Brazil it's very common with profane people, porn stars and criminals do that all the time. They'll preach how they used to be wicked, but Jesus touched them and that's it. They never repaired the mess they created, or even address it, it's like it never happened. A lot of them end up going back to their debauched ways once the conversion high ends.
You just live your life, there are sacraments, there are virtues, just do them, bro, it's not that hard. I've never heard of a Catholic that measures those actions like the protestant mindset implies.
>>17785917
>baptism and confirmation
You're a Catholic now. That's it. Before Baptism, for this world, doesn't matter if you believe in Christ or not, God is merciful and decides who gets into Heaven or not, and I don't believe pakistani sheepherders how never heard of Christ would bet punished for that. But if you want to follow Christ, then you need to get baptized. Think of it like getting the keys to a car, yeah it's yours, but you actually need to get into the car and drive it to get somewhere, just having something isn't enough.
>Salvation is binary
No, it's not. It's a continuing process. You don't get saved in life. It's after you die. You're taking a very protestant point of view and asking why won't Catholics answer that. The answer is: that's not how we see it.
If we're wrong (from your POV), then we're wrong. But we can't answer something we don't believe in.

>>17785806 (OP)
>Do Catholics or Orthodox know how they're saved?
Yes, protestantism has less assurance on this
https://youtu.be/-vMNl-p5Ov8?si=Tvh-L4RQzIfOQwI5

>>17785947
>How many times is receiving communion required?
None. The Father decides who gets saved or not. We do it because Jesus instructed us to do so.
>Does every single sin have to be confessed, or just mortal ones you can remember?
No sin needs to be confessed, because the Father decides who gets saved or not. We confess our sins because Jesus told us to do so. If we know about that instruction and refuse to do so, then we're denying God's mercy and that's what will sent us to hell.
>How many good works are required to be performed?
None. If I baptize someone and that person immediately have a heart attack, they'll go to Heaven AFAIK. We do good works because Jesus told us to do so.

Everything that happens is because God wanted so, we only follow the instructions given to us. Those things are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you're free to read it instead of autistically insisting on something Catholics do not believe in, then claiming you're right because we have no answers for something we do not believe in.

>>17785955
Baptism of desire and the lack of access to sacraments are themes that the Church have discussed plenty of times. Recently there was even a Synod about the Amazon situation, since there's a serious lack of priests. I live in Rural Brazil and our priest take care of 16 communities in our parish and the nearby parish that lacks a priest so the 3 parishes nearby rotate priests there. We have Mass every sunday at the main church, but the communities have the Liturgy of the Word. You're not being clever trying to autistically meansure those things. You're being dense and obnoxious.

>>17786402
I wish you good luck. Please don't isolate yourself from the rest of us.
A lot of spirits dwell within, my good man. Not just God. Very capable of imitating his voice.

>>17786486
>If we know about that instruction and refuse to do so, then we're denying God's mercy and that's what will sent us to hell.
So you do need to confess sins then, as long as you're aware of the instruction.
>If I baptize someone and that person immediately have a heart attack, they'll go to Heaven AFAIK
Is baptism required for salvation?
>instead of autistically insisting on something Catholics do not believe in
When have I done this? What have I insisted on?

>>17786566
>Is baptism required for salvation?
That's what the Bible says. John 3:5

>>17786464
Do you believe people who are in hell can then go to heaven?

>>17786569
Does the word baptism appear in John 3:5?

>>17786574
The word "baptism" appears nowhere in John 3:5 or anywhere near it. Jesus is talking about saving belief in reference to being "born again" in this passage of the Bible. See the full context:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
(John 3:3-7)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
(1 Peter 1:23)

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
(1 John 5:1)

>>17786566
>So you do need to confess sins then, as long as you're aware of the instruction.
That is correct, yes. As long as you're aware of the instructions, you're supposed to follow it. Someone can't be blamed for not knowing, they can be blamed for being able to know but refusing to do so. Same way Catholics will be sent to hell if they refuse to preach and teach others about Jesus.
>Is baptism required for salvation?
I think so, yes. The people that get saved without it are so DESPITE not being baptized because the Father wanted so.
>When have I done this? What have I insisted on?
The questions I answered. The "how many times I need to do X?"
That's not the way Catholics think, that was pretty much the first answer you got, and yet you still insisted in this stupid line of questioning. You can't put a number on salvation. It's not about doing it X times as a ritual. We don't think like that. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.
>>17786570
No. Why would I believe that? Once you die, God judges you, and that's it. You get sent up or down.
>>17786574
It appears in Matthew 28:19
Also, what kind of question is that? That's not how we see the Bible at all. The Bible exists because of the Catholic Church, not the opposite. Which Church do you think Jesus was talking about, or the community in Acts that gathered to worship Him? The Bible isn't an absolute instruction manual which nothing else outside it matters, the Bible is the testimony of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, of how it started and why.

>>17786602
>It appears in Matthew 28:19
So not in John 3
>That's not how we see the Bible at all. The Bible exists because of the Catholic Church, not the opposite.
I asked a simple question about the text of a cited scripture, so this response makes a great deal of sense: you don't see the bible that way (that is, you don't care what it says) and you don't believe it exists because of God, just a total pagan religion unhinged from the revelation of God.

>>17786613
NTA but you are the most disingenuous asshole I've ever met.

>>17786602
>The Bible exists because of the Catholic Church, not the opposite.
Catholicism was one of the groups that tried to corrupt the Bible, anon. To this day they still use and promote a corrupted version that isn't based on the received text.

>>17786620
Incorrect, it was the protestants like Martin Luther that decided to rip out books. The Catholic church uses the same bible today that was used since the earliest councils.

>>17786619
God bless.

>>17786613
>>17786620
Tell me, what is the point of asking a Catholic what a Catholic believe in if the answer is going to be that?
You wanted to hear a different viewpoint from the one you had just so you could shit on it?
Yes. I gave you a Catholic answer, if that's the conclusion you reached, so be it.
>>17786619
Agreed. It's basically what people in South Nigeria call "a motherfucker"

>>17786569
Doesn't your Church (if you're a Catholic) say non-Christians can be saved? Non-Christians aren't baptized. Also I should note that Aquinas taught in the Summa it's not required, citing the authority of Augustine and Ambrose of Milan.
>>17786602
>The people that get saved without it
So it's not required. If you can be saved without it then that means it's not required.
>That's not the way Catholics think
You were the one who said those things are required for salvation, so I asked for more clarification. I'm not necessarily looking for a specific number, just anything that tells how much or how many is required.

>>17786613
>and you don't believe it exists because of God
The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. Why do I need ONLY the book God gave us through the members of His body if I can have the entire thing?

>>17786636
The point is that the church of Rome is a counterfeit of Christianity preaching a false gospel which leads the souls of all who trust in it to damnation. Roman Catholics and those tempted by them need to hear that this religion was set up by the enemy and that the way to have peace with God is by trusting in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone.

>>17786643
The body of Christ are those who cling to the words of God in faith, not the false teachers of a bloated bureaucracy who set themselves above them.

>>17786640
>So it's not required. If you can be saved without it then that means it's not required.
Can you eat 10kg of meat and not get your stomach burnt off?
Can you pet a lion without getting your arm bit off?
Can you drink and smoke as you please without getting cancer?
The answer is yes to all those thing. It's not because you CAN that you SHOULD.
Non-Christians can't be blamed for not knowing better if they never had the chance of knowing. I do not believe that God will punish the sheepherders in Pakistan for being Muslim, I do believe the muslim elites of the world are indeed going straight to hell for coming in contact with Christianity and refusing to convert. Why isn't that clear?
There's not a clear cut. I follow the instructions because Jesus told me so, should I decide to give that up, I do so knowing that I'd be sent straight to Hell, regardless of my belief that those indians in that island that kills everyone that get there will probably be saved.
I can't tell you how much the rules applies for other people, I can tell you, however, that it's my duty to follow them, and encourage others to do so as well.

>>17786626
They have a corrupted form that changes what the Bible says in numerous places. For example, they even change the text of John 3:5 to make it more misleading.

John 3:5 should say, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." But their version has the word "renatus" in Latin (instead of "natus") leading to a form of the verse – i.e. "born again" instead of "born" – that exists in no historical Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John. There are countless examples of corruptions in the Latin form of the text, and that's before we get to the apocrypha which they arbitrarily added in the 16th century. They are a cult unrelated to the historical church that Jesus founded. At one point they were trying very hard to destroy the church and its Scripture, but failed due to God protecting His church.

>>17786643
>The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.
This is false, they do not teach the Gospel. It's obviously not true which is why you feel the need to keep repeating this line.

>Why do I need ONLY the book God gave us through the members of His body if I can have the entire thing?
The Holy Bible exists in part because Catholicism failed to destroy it. They tried to destroy the Scripture, but ultimately failed. They are wicked and unrighteous, being another one of the twisted mockeries of the church that are run by satanic forces.

>>17786648
Agreed.

>>17786648
Get that nitwitted jackassery out of here. Jack Chick didn't know shit about fuck and it shows. If you genuinely believe any of that you are a brain dead moron.

>>17786648
>>17786653
Hilarious. Anyway, I've answered questions asked the best I could. If all you have to offer is ignorance, then I guess there's shit I can do.

>>17786674
He is dead on accurate in this one. You should read it

>>17786666
>The Holy Bible exists in part because Catholicism failed to destroy it.

Just makin shit up, now, are we?

>>17786679
I have read it and I've read the catechism and the bible. Nothing he says corresponds to anything any Catholic has ever believed.

>>17786681
There are a couple of hand-written copies of the printed Greek New Testaments that existed in the 16th century. The were made to save the text because Rome was destroying every non-Latin copy they could get their hands on including the original languages.

>>17786681
They legitimately tried to burn all accurate copies of Scriptures they could get their hands on because it contradicted their corrupted versions.

>>17786662
>Why isn't that clear?
Because you say it's required, and then talk about people being saved without it. That's a contradiction. So is it your belief that it's only required if you know that's what God commands?

>>17786691
More Protestant conspiracy theories. Next you're going to say the hats are actually from Dagon fish priests or something else equally as ludicrous.

>>17786627
How about "i'm sorry"

>>17786685
Ok, then you're either lying to yourself, or you don't know what the church of Rome officially teaches. For example, here's Dominican monks talking about the fact the Roman priest is "alter Christus"- another Christ https://dominicanfriars.org/alter-christus/

>>17786689
Wow, and Rome's power went all the way through the world into Egypt, Ottoman Empire, Armenia, Georgia?
That's truly fascinating, tell me, do you also believe the Roman Catholic Church slaughtered all the cats in Persia, India, and other lands it had no power in as well?
Oh my God, I can't wait to hear your explanation about those evil Karling worshipers getting the muslim world, China and India to go along with their time adulteration.
Amazing.
What great knowledge will I see once I hit update next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYgzceVZA9E

>>17786700
I'm certainly not, though.
>>17786706
Is this a copypasta?

>>17786695
Yes.

>>17786712
So a catechumen who dies of a heart attack right before baptism goes to hell forever?

>>17786711
And how do you expect someone to take "God bless" within the context you delivered it?

>>17786705
Oh, so he got a word right. He also managed to spell "the" correctly, despite being an uneducated muckraker, doesn't justify any of his doctrinal claims.

>>17786720
They should take it as the pronouncement of a divine blessing.

>>17786716
Following his posts in earnest, you would have noticed that his description of salvation accounted for God's will and our abilities relative to it.

We know what we're supposed to do. We're obligated to make the effort, lest we demonstrate that we'd prefer separation from God.

>>17786723
That is a doctrinal claim. He represented everything correctly. I'm a former Romanist myself, till I got saved by the blood of Jesus. You can have peace with God.

>>17786725
What can you do to ensure that they do, and not interpret your statement as vanity?

>>17786732
>I'm a former Romanist
You're a current imbecile.

>>17786738
I am not responsible for the misapprehensions of others.

>>17786741
Uh huh.

>>17786730
So we went from baptism being required for salvation, to baptism being required only if you know about it, to it not actually being required even if you know

>>17786679
Catholics don't believe Christ "leaves" heaven or that the priest "commands" god. The rest is semantic nonsense.

>>17785938
This guy gets it

>>17786716
Why would someone go to hell for dying trying to follow what God commanded? Is your God evil?
Mine isn't. Baptism of desire has been a concept for a long time. Similarly, Pope Francis canonized the possibly muslim man who died along the Coptic martyrs in the Middle East, because the man, regardless of who he was, saw that Muslims were doing a great injustice and decided to die with them.
Look, I know you're trying to do a gotcha situation, so can you please just skip to it? I'm trying to answer yor questions honestly, please, show me some respect as well.

>>17786755
The citation is from Alphonsus Ligouri, I know this is the exact wording of a Roman priest (probably, Ligouri).

>>17786777
Jack Chick also believes the Vatican maintains a secret database of protestants and invented Islam.

The entire premise of this thread is a Protestant error.
You're asking "how much?" like a worker asking for the terms of his contract. "How many works? How many sacraments?" This is the wrong question. You are asking how to earn a wage from a Father who is trying to give you an inheritance.
The Evangelical has a clear answer for the initial down payment. The Catholic answer is about the lifelong process of being transformed into a son who is fit for that inheritance.
Salvation isn't a legal transaction you complete. It's a loving relationship you live. It's a process of being made divine by cooperating with God's grace, which He gives us through His Body, the Church. You don't do the works to get saved; you do them because you are being saved.

>>17786751
I think the pace of this thread has picked up too quickly and it's getting violent. I was actually affirming what he said, that it's required if you know.
By the way, when you first asked him the question, his response was "I think so" not "definitively yes" which in all humility I think we can work with him on, given the rest of his posts being aligned with the idea that it's up to God.

I wonder by the way if you take issue with any of my suggestions here (>>17786316)
Please, let's make this about being better Christians.

>>17786810
>let's make this about being better Christians.
If only you protestants were Christians to begin with.

>>17786791
This is the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

Anyways, I found the source. Liguori says
>But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests — HOC EST CORPUS MEUM — God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands
Which is the same meaning but not the very words, so either Chick was paraphrasing (extremely unlikely, since he is not the only one I've seen quote those words), or he had a different translation, or he miscited and it's from a different priest (probably John O'Brien in The Faith of Millions in that case)

>>17786812
You have no right to say that and our Church even says you are wrong.

>>17786813
> is the same meaning but not the very words
Literally different concepts.

>>17786829
This is the actual semantic difference. Nothing else he was talking about was semantic. For example the priest's status as "alter Christus". There is no acceptable interpretation of these words (much less the Romish one). There is no circumstance under which it would be proper to call a Protestant minister another Christ. But when Rome names its priest thus it means he is "another Christ" because like Christ he offers Him as sacrifice to the Father for the sins of the living and the dead. This is a sacrilege, a heresy, and a blasphemy against the Lord Jesus, who offered Himself once for all, making pure all who are being sanctified, and sat down at the right hand of God. He who is called another Christ is Antichrist.

>>17786846
Again the semantics. "It is finished" did not mean that we don't partake of his sacrifice. It doesn't mean his sacrifice is over and so no one else can be saved. It's pure semantics.

Alter Christi refers to the position of the priest in celebration of the mass. He's not literally another christ. Semantic traps like this don't work when you are capable of understanding abstract concepts. I understand they may work on the uneducated sweltering masses of the American south where ignorance reigns supreme, especially from the pulpit.

>>17786813
>This is the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
He was easily duped moron who did no background research into anything he ever said. Just look at how he got taken by Rivera. What a stooge.

I'm done with you. If you want to learn what Catholics ACTUALLY believe, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Catholic and Orthodox theology emphasizes mystery, process, and humility before God's judgment.
They're wary of the Evangelical certainty that can ignore free will, mortal sin, or falling away.
There’s a concern about presumption — claiming you’re saved when you might not truly be living in grace.
They both see salvation as not a one-time event, but a lifelong relationship with God.

>>17786852
>Again the semantics
Are you reading the wrong post? The Protestant reformers did not believe this was "semantics", their enemies did not believe it was "semantics", nobody on either side thought it was "semantics" until in the last several decades those of Rome, influenced by the ecumenist tendencies of Vatican II and its champions, suddenly forgot where the battle lines are.
>"It is finished" did not mean that we don't partake of his sacrifice. It doesn't mean his sacrifice is over and so no one else can be saved.
It means the curse on His people is finished, the dominion of sin over them.
>Alter Christi refers to the position of the priest in celebration of the mass
I literally said this exactly and attacked it directly. I'm sorry I forgot to add the word "mass", but anyone who understands this and is intellectually honest realizes this is the propitiatory sacrifice I spoke of. It is precisely for this reason the alter Christus is an Antichrist and his mass is an abomination which insults the true sacrifice of Christ. Not "semantics".

Mommy, daddy, stop fighting.

I've answered everything that was asked of me before this turned into a shitshow. So I'll say this before leaving.
You need me to blaspheme, and commit heresy and sacrilege so you can be right, I know I'm right and treated you with respect, despite everything I've answered pointing to me believing piously that you'll burn in hell.
I could have insulted you, I could have pulled plenty of Church documents and writings saying the most offensive things about you and your faith as possible, instead, I've acted like a Christian and offered you answers in which way I could.
Maybe Protestants are right, and accepting Jesus is the only thing needed to be saved.
I do not say "tell me" because I don't care about what you have to say, I'll just ask others witnessing this thin: who accepted Jesus, the one acting with reason, or the one throwing a fit like a retard?
Think about the way you act before acting, even if you are correct about Catholics being wrong, your behavior won't make anyone believe in you. It's the opposite. Is this truly what Jesus wanted? That his followers kept people away from Him?

>>17786852
>He's not literally another christ.
Correct. He is what is referred to as a "false christ" in the Bible. Jesus said such people would arise, and here they are.

>>17786867
>They're wary of the Evangelical certainty that can ignore free will, mortal sin, or falling away.
To the extent that is true, it is because they are not certain of anything at all and haven't really grasped the Gospel. They are like wanderers lost in the dark. Some may yet find the light of the truth, but until they do they cannot be said to be saved. The leaders of Catholicism, however, are false prophets, and as such (see 2 Peter chapter 2) their prospects are grim.

I am confident based on the sovereignty and wisdom of God that those who are His will be saved.

It even says in the Bible that the Lord is "longsuffering," and "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, I believe that through exposure to the Gospel and the Holy Spirit's grace, those who are of the truth will understand the Gospel in their life, and believe that Jesus did all of the work for them, and for us all. They will believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and understand that they have been bought with a price, and that this price was paid once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Isaiah 53:5-6).

>>17787172
>those who are His
Even his own apostles were free to go at any time. None of them thought they would, and they did, again and again. Not all of them changed their minds before it was too late.

And how many more were "with him" until he said "eat my body"? And then through the centuries - how many were his until they were being tortured?

>>17787172
>they never really grasped the gospel
Do you know Jesus better than Peter and Judas who lived and ate with him in person?
Or the bishops that fasted, prayed, and studied their whole lives just to become heretics?

Are you so sure that in a moment of fear you won't deny him? If you're lucky to live through that trauma - you still have to repent. This is not supposed to be an easy game.

>>17787172
>They will believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and understand that they have been bought with a price, and that this price was paid once for all
And then they will sin anyway, because that's what we are.
>not willing that any should perish
But we have our own wills.
Which is why forgiveness is essential. We dont get it if we dont ask for it, and we dont ask for it if we think we're fine.

>>17787244
See the following:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
- 2 Timothy 1:9

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
- 1 John 5:13

>>17787255
>But we have our own wills.
Consider what Paul said in Philippians.

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
- Philippians 2:13

See also what it says here:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
- Acts 13:48

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."
- Matthew 15:13

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
- Isaiah 55:8-11

>>17787270
I'm going to respond to this in two parts.
>timothy, john
to preface - the word "save" doesn't mean anything to someone who isn't in danger. there is not an equivalent to this in material terms. you can physically save someone's life by pulling them out of quicksand. but you cannot save their will unless they choose to repent. the salvation god has given us is the freedom to cooperate with him.

timothy - he has called us. and we are free in our response. like he called judas, and he squandered it.
he has saved us - despite the fact that we don't deserve it, like judas - by giving us this opportunity. but he didn't take it.

john - "i'm writing these things to give you these tools". doesn't mean we're going to use them.

>>17787270
Again, you cannot save someone's will by taking it away from them.

You save something material by taking control of it.
You save free will by giving it a course to take.

>phillipians, acts, matthew, isaiah
To your philippians quote - it says that when we choose good, that is god's influence at work.
this doesn't preclude other influences from working.
we are not angels. while we are alive we are struggling. there is no other point to this trial.

to your acts quote - it says that everyone who made it into heaven believed.
if life is a trip through the desert, and salvation is surviving the trip:
everyone who survived, drank water.
that doesn't mean everyone who drank water, survived.

to your matthew quote -
this only mentions those plants which don't come from god - these will not last..
this doesn't say what happens to those plants which do come from god.
those that the father plants - have a CHANCE. see the fig tree that produced no fruit for jesus to eat as he entered jerusalem.
god put that tree there and gave it water and sunlight.
it had leaves but no fruit.

to your isaiah quote -
the lord's ways are mysterious to us, and the heavens are above - our material deeds are limited in comparison.

but the next verses explain that regardless, there will be corresponding deeds as the influence from above penetrates the earth "making it bring forth and bud"

>>17786911
>You need me to blaspheme, and commit heresy and sacrilege so you can be right
I think this makes it obvious you were referring to me (though to be fair, I have not really read OP's posts). You don't seem to understand, I don't "need that to be right", you, or rather your church, does actually do that, and that's the problem. It is not about being right. It is about being right with God. I used strong language, as did Paul in Galatians. Instead of this shameful display of womanly emotion, it should have moved you to consideration of the seriousness of the subject. This is not a casual disagreement about an obscure doctrine among Christian brothers, this is not obscure, and we are not brothers; the chasm which lies between us is precisely as large as the distance between heaven and hell.
>I could have insulted you
I get the impression based on the start of this post that you and I did not interact at all. However, at least one of your fellows did insult me, more than once. I did not insult any of you, I did not even insult Rome (which I add is not your person), I merely spoke truth which is necessary to say concerning her. Nor did I even respond in kind since I do not have childish motivations.
>Think about the way you act before acting, even if you are correct about Catholics being wrong, your behavior won't make anyone believe in you
The charge is false, and I have committed no sin here, nor have I shamefully presented the gospel here. I did nothing wrong and God willing I will act the exact same way many times in the future. And since the charge is false, it obviously cannot be the cause of your offense, but I can ascertain no other but the gospel proclamation itself. You should take the opportunity to ask yourself and consider: why does this simple message of grace and forgiveness fill you with this emotion, and what does scripture say is the reaction of the unbeliever to the gospel of Christ? It is not too late yet.

>>17787344
>he has saved us - despite the fact that we don't deserve it, like judas - by giving us this opportunity. but he didn't take it.
It's true that Judas Iscariot had the opportunity to be saved, but did not accept it. Jesus already knew what was going to happen, just as He fully knows every single person who has ever walked the earth.

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."
- John 17:12

The "son of perdition" here refers to Judas Iscariot. See also John 6:71, John 13:21-27.

The long and short of it is that God doesn't give salvation to people by accident.

>>17787353
>john - "i'm writing these things to give you these tools". doesn't mean we're going to use them.
"That you may know that you have eternal life" is a statement of fact. See again John 5:24.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)

>everyone who survived, drank water.
>that doesn't mean everyone who drank water, survived.
Acts 13:48 is not analogous to this example. It says more than simply that, "everyone who was ordained to eternal life believed." It is a one-to-one relationship. It says "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

So the number of people who were ordained to eternal life also is the number of people who believed. Since Acts specifically says the numbers were equal, that means not one person believed who was not ordained to eternal life.

I understand the logic of what you are saying, but the issue I have with the example is that Acts simply doesn't use the language you are implying in this case. It uses much stronger one-to-one language, saying that the numbers of both are the same. Which is why it's so revealing about how God works, and why I marked it down and quoted it. Of course it accords with the rest of the Bible, such as 2 Timothy 1:9 and 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 John 5:13 and so on. These all tell us about eternal security of the believer. There is no reason to doubt, according to the Bible.

>those that the father plants - have a CHANCE.
According to the Gospel all have a chance. In Revelation 22:17 it says, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

>>17787549
Thank you for all this. It does sound very straightforward. But I doubt the fruits of this interpretation all the same.
How would you respond to the idea that the angels that fell also believed and still believe?
And how do you account for repentance? We're still here, sinning daily, even though we think we believe.

>>17788497
>How would you respond to the idea that the angels that fell also believed and still believe?
I see two lines of thought set out in the Bible about this. I can try to explain how they relate, but ultimately anyone with the Bible should be able to find the same ideas there with enough study and help from the divine for understanding.

The first line of thought that I am aware of centers around James 2. Here it says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19). This is in the broader context of James 2:14-26, a passage on why it is necessary to show one's faith to others by works in order for them to be saved. For this see James 2:14 right at the start, where we have one person saying to another person that they have faith. James says this by itself is of no profit to that person, since they cannot see your faith all by itself. The analogy is given in verses 15-16 about someone who has food and shelter but who only says "be filled." From the perspective of the person outside, this is not enough to prove that the person has these things, even if they really do. Plus the person who has it is wasting their resources that God would have distributed. Compare 2 Corinthians 4:3 for example. This passage in James also lines up with Christ's teachings in Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 7:20. By their fruits you shall know them.

As I see it, the Bible presents all of this a distinct concept from the concept of eternal security, since eternal security has to do with knowledge strictly of one's own belief, not that of others. God also sees the heart without any need to see their works first, c.f. Romans 4:1-10. Thus, James chapter 2 makes sense in the light of what Paul and others say. These passages of Scripture reconcile. It is telling that James uses the same example of Abraham (James 2:21), but here focuses on the fact that we can know of such mens' faith by the Biblical account of their works. Cont'd.

>>17788497
With the above context, James 2:19 makes sense in that broader context. The devils claim to believe in God, but we already know they are unrighteous. The issue presented seems to be twofold. Firstly, the devils only claim to believe in God, but their actions speak louder than their words. That's how it fits into this passage. But further, I think James is pointing out how these entities' actions really suggest that the god they believe in is not the one true God of the Bible. They may be monotheistic in belief, but they believe in some unitary god; in other words, not the triune God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Although you find examples where they seem to sincerely think that there is one God over all, which in itself is not a wrong idea, there is no example where they believe in the divinity of Christ, for example. This also lines up with what we see in the world to some extent, since there are other belief systems that involve denying the divine nature of the Son, but are still monotheistic. In other words, another necessary truth we get from James in this passage (beyond the first point) is basically this: it's not enough simply to be a monotheist. If one denies Christ as God, they are still denying the truth, whether it's a devil or another human. And their fruits will also inevitably bear this out. Christ tells us that in Matthew 7:20. By their fruits, we shall know them.

My understanding is that the fallen angels or devils are associated with satan, and hence the god (lowercase 'g') they proclaim is in actuality the Devil, a unitarian entity. This lines up with the idea that people one finds in the world like mohammadens and those now claiming to be Jews, are really worshipping the devil as well. Since they deny Christ, they deny the one true God. James, the brother of Christ, affirms this fact in James 2:19. He does this as part of making his bigger point about faith and works. Cont'd.

>>17788789
Now the other line of thought that sometimes is brought up related to your question is the instances in the Bible where the devils that possess people call out to Jesus as the Son of God. These instances seem to fit in well with the previous explanation. It seems like the devils are willing to say anything that would lead people into confusion or lead them astray. Although they would freely admit to Jesus being the Son of God, according to Mark 1:34 it says that Jesus suffered them not to speak. They are classic examples of what we would call an "unreliable witness," similar to the witch in 1 Samuel 28 or satan in various passages. Similarly, the Bible describes how satan would try to use Scripture to mislead, as seen during the temptation in the wilderness – however, his quotations are corrupt and not completely accurate, if you investigate by comparing scripture with scripture. In the temptation in the garden of Eden, it was the same thing. God originally told them that if they eat of the fruit, they will surely die. But when the serpent appeared, it questioned whether God had said they could eat of every tree, leaving out the exception that was originally included. If you leave out details of what someone said, you can misrepresent them pretty badly, as we see happened here comparing Genesis 3:1 to the original command in Genesis 2:17. Furthermore, when Eve answered, she added the phrase "neither shall ye touch it," implying that God had said this. This was a subtle change in what God had actually said, by adding the detail that God had supposedly told them not to "touch" the fruit; this claim doesn't line up with Genesis 2:17 either. So we see here examples first of taking away from, and then adding to God's word as part of the process of deception that took place, leading to the sin being committed.

Anyway, this is a protracted way of saying that believing part of what God's word says, but then denying another part, is still evil. Cont'd.

>>17788497
>And how do you account for repentance? We're still here, sinning daily, even though we think we believe.
Repentance in the most generic possible sense means turning away from something. Paul says in Acts 26:20 the following on this account:

"But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."
(Acts 26:20)

The repentance part of this was turning away from their old way. All sinners have gone astray, none of them sought after God. Repentance applied here means a person turns away from that way. As a saved person, we recognize that our old ways were sinful and abominable before a just and righteous God. Turning away (repenting) from one way necessarily means turning toward something new. Therefore, it is equally important that when someone repents away from their old way in a Biblical sense, they turn toward God, as Paul said in Acts 26:20. This has to do with belief.

However, Paul adds a third point. He says, "and do works meet for repentance." Here we see that the good works that follow are not the repentance itself, but they are something that accompanies it afterward. So there is a distinguishment between the repentance which is in the mind and heart, and the "works meet for repentance" which are only made possible once one has repented AND turned toward God. This is possible, once they actually want to do those works thanks to God's influence, who is willing saved people to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:14). See also 1 Corinthians 15:10, Philippians 1:6, etc. The saved person chose to allow God to influence them, and now God moves them to do according to His will. Otherwise, they couldn't do it on their own. Christ said, "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

If God said they shall not come into condemnation (John 5:24), then we can (and should) believe that divine decree. Cont'd.

>>17788497
>We're still here, sinning daily,
Herein involves the difference between positional sanctification and holiness. While in this world, we still experience sin. Paul said as much in Romans 7 and elsewhere. However, in Romans 8 we see the following:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
- Romans 8:28-30

Justification follows glorification, but they are not equivalent. This calling is also held to be distinct from the general calling of the Gospel mentioned in Matthew 22:14 ("For many are called, but few are chosen") because of the difference in context. I see where it says in John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." This can be contrasted with Matthew 22:14. To explain this contrast, why all men are drawn to Christ, but not all are saved, I look at Jesus' statement to some of the Jews, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40). So their unbelief, and of people like Judas Iscariot and others, is attributable directly to them. It's not because they were denied "irresistable grace." They simply chose not to receive it. This is something that seems mysterious and baffling to someone like me, but I must believe it since the Bible says so. See Hebrews 6:4-5. It says they tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, but ultimately they rejected it. Judas Iscariot probably saw many miracles, but he still rejected the faith. It is possible to "taste" something (Hebrews 6:5) without actually receiving it. And God foreknew this, but it was still entirely due to their own actions.

>>17788798
>who is willing saved people to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:14)
Sorry, meant to say Philippians 2:13 here.