Thread 18072872

>Hyper-Grace - A teaching that emphasizes God’s grace to the extent that repentance, confession of sin, and obedience are seen as unnecessary for believers, claiming all sin is already forgiven and cannot affect one’s standing with God.

>Lordship Salvation - A doctrine that teaches true salvation includes submitting to Jesus as Lord, requiring repentance from sin, obedience, and a transformed life as evidence of genuine faith.

Which do you believe? I believe if you believe Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you are going to heaven so I would land Hyper-Grace camp. If you believe in Lordship Salvation, you are basically a pharisee, a hyper partisan of legalism and leads to work plus salvation theology. There is no sin count meter of you going to heaven or hell. It literally doesn’t matter what you do, if you believe in Jesus Christ you are going to heaven cause thats what the bible. Hence someone like Ted Bundy is in heaven, cause he accepted Jesus christ as his lord and savior. what he did was horrible and people should lead a moral life, but once again we need to separate the act from the believer.

>>18072872 (OP)
The problem is you tards dont know what it means to be "in Christ". If you are the body of God, Christ, then you can not sin because there can be no law which condemns God. However, the blood of Christ is therefore the price paid for the fulfillment of the promise.

>>18072970
> If you are the body of God, Christ, then you can not sin because there can be no law which condemns God
I don’t remember there being a sin count meter for heaven. Everyone by definition of existence is sinning. Again you are advocating works plus faith.

> However, the blood of Christ is therefore the price paid for the fulfillment of the promise.
Christ’s sacrifice is the forgiveness of all of our sins. you would be making christ’s sacrifice null and void if you say otherwise.

the distinction is single predestination vs double predestination

Double predestination is that men are predestined to heaven or hell

Single predestination which is the proper understanding is that all men are predestined to heaven, but by their own act of will they can mortally sin seperating them from God. This seperation can only be repaired by (1) confession or (2) a perfect act of contrition, (which includes the intention to go to confession)

>>18073028
>you are advocating works
Faith is all that is required, but after life is not where the kingdom he established upon the earth is found.

>>18073049
evangelics are actually such silly billies. atleast calvanists and lutherans make arguments, evangelics just be like
>faith is all that is required
with no evidence and if u debate them u know its about to be the dumbest nonsense youve ever heard

>>18073038
it is single predestination if you accept jesus christ as lord and savior. even if subconsciously you do it, you are predestined.

>Faith is all that is required, but after life is not where the kingdom he established upon the earth is found.
explain. im at work

>>18073064
False. This is an improper way of understanding God because no man can come to God by means of man. If man were given infinite time without grace from God, they could never come to God. It is only by God's grace that a man can come to God, which is why all men are single predestined to come to God.

I understand that modern protestants are responsibile for this poor framing in people's minds, but this discussion is properly understood by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvanists, etc.

>>18073060
> evangelics are actually such silly billies. atleast calvanists and lutherans make arguments, evangelics just be like

so list them. because you are advocating works plus salvation. you don’t get to heaven giving paula white lots of money. you can give a trillion dollars or a penny, you could be a serial mass murder or never killed. there is no “i can do x works” to be forgiven. no laws or legalism apply to my salvation, hence we don’t care what government does

>>18073070
False. As a Catholic, my position is not Faith + Works in the way you understand it. Works is referring specifically to (1) Baptism and (2) Confession. My system operates on the assumption that if a man mortally sins (grave matter, deliberate consent, full knowledge) that man CANNOT go to heaven without going to confession, or a perfect and genuine act of contrition. It is NOT that man is not saved by faith, nor is it that man with faith will not be saved without charitable acts.

>>18073069
>no man can come to God by means of man.
Salvation is 100% God’s work, not human effort, law-keeping, repentance rituals, sacraments, or church authority.
No pastor, priest, or religious institution can act as a mediator between a believer and God.
Jesus alone is the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).

>>18073081
We are in agreement, but the distinction being that your view may insinuate that God predestines to hell as well, but my view is that God predestines to heaven and man by his own will goes to hell.

1 Peter says all human authority is to be obeyed, assuming even in your view that church authority is human authority, you are still supposed to obey it.

>>18073078
> Works is referring specifically to (1) Baptism and (2) Confession.
i have done both. what is the argument here?

>My system operates on the assumption that if a man mortally sins (grave matter, deliberate consent, full knowledge) that man CANNOT go to heaven without going to confession, or a perfect and genuine act of contrition.

placing the cart before the horse. what is a moral sin, how does it compare to sin sin?

>It is NOT that man is not saved by faith, nor is it that man with faith will not be saved without charitable acts.

I never said charitable acts shouldn’t be done. I am saying they are not required to enter the kingdom of heaven. hence babies kids argument. I’m saying people like Paula white use charitable part to fleece people out of millions of dollars. It is a form of abuse and pharisees literally would do that shit. put people into poverty in the name of their hyper partisan legalism.

>>18073102
a mortal sin is any grave matter, with deliberate consent and full knowledge. which is what I was trying to include in the ().

>>18073109
Venial sin is any non mortal sin, essentially a sin which does not warrent confession or deprive one from grace IE speeding, swearing, something like this

>>18072970
you are afraid of death so much you start babbling jibberish written by desert illiterates

>>18073089
>“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
all laws we should follow, but we are not required to follow if we want to make it into the kingdom of heaven. so yes and no. john brown violated that in order to fight the evils of slavery, but he was rendering onto God’s what is God.

>>18073086
> We are in agreement, but the distinction being that your view may insinuate that God predestines to hell as well, but my view is that God predestines to heaven and man by his own will goes to hell.
jesus said hell is separation from God. thats the definition. so once you get grace, you are no longer separated.

>>18073109
> mortal sin
where is that?

>>18073109
>>18073110
lets say we agree greater and lesser sin, that still doesn’t mean once you accept christ as lord and savior you aren’t going to heaven.

>>18073145
Yes it does, the gospel explicity says there are followers who fall away. Respectfully please stop spouting nonsense based on feelings.

My view is that "accepting Christ as Lord" does not result in once saved always saved, and that man still has the capacity to warrant hell (by mortal sin), but God who is merciful has allowed the sacrament of confession for men to return to God

The Lutheran view which may be of interest to you is that man is in mortal sin all the time, but because the sacraments do not exist there is actually no way for man to bridge the gap from sin to grace, and that man is in depraved misery at all times. My view is the more loving view than the protestant position that there is no sacraments.

>>18073127
This is also my position, that in grace you are not seperated from God. You can think of it as a binary where:

State of Grace

Mortal sin ---> State of Sin

Confession ----> return to State of Grace warranting heaven

>>18073149
> the gospel explicity says there are followers who fall away.
by being apostate, stop believing. hence no longer “followers”

>Respectfully please stop spouting nonsense based on feelings.

we are born with feelings from God. that is what drives us. we are not robots.

>>18073170
In your view how can someone become an apostate if they have grace?

>>18073170
I don't mean to ben shapiro on you but matters of God are not subjective, they are objective.
God is not formed by individual feelings, but rather is objective factual information about God.

>>18073181
This post has been fact checked objectively true by Daily Wire patriots!

>>18073173
> In your view how can someone become an apostate if they have grace?
they no longer believe jesus Christ is lord and savior.

>>18073190
If your view is once saved always saved, it would be impossible to lose your faith.

If your view is that man can fall from grace, that is my view. I would only extend it to not only a rejection of faith, but also the 10 commandments (warranting mortal sin).

>>18073181
God is objective. Hyper-grace rests in what He already did through Christ, not in feelings or effort.

>>18073194
If falling from grace is possible, it would mean a willful turning from faith and God’s commandments, not minor faults.

>>18073202
Son, I love you. I really don't want to be rude, and I want to explain this without being elitest.

No historic theological positions, Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutheranism, Calvanism, Anglicanism, none of these hold to your modern view. It's made up baselessly out of a thin air within the last 200 years max.

If you polled a Christian in 200ad, 400ad, 600ad, 800ad, 1000ad, 1200ad, etc. they would not hold your view. Your view is modern, it is not true.

I consider being a good Catholic to be hard, it's not something which I as a man desire to do. I don't like not being able to have pre marital kissing, i do not like being barred from drinking, i do not like these things, its hard. But I obey them because that is where the objective truth is. If I followed my feelings I would just pick and choose the parts I like and dislike, as most protestants do. Stay rooted to the facts, submit humbly to Gods law as it is and not as you desire.

>>18073218
>No historic theological positions, Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutheranism, Calvanism, Anglicanism, none of these hold to your modern view. It's made up baselessly out of a thin air within the last 200 years max.

i was baptized catholic and raised a lutheran. do you think i don’t know this? i went to church almost every sunday and was an altar boy.

>If you polled a Christian in 200ad, 400ad, 600ad, 800ad, 1000ad, 1200ad, etc. they would not hold your view. Your view is modern, it is not true.
are you implying the church didn’t have huge problems and huge disagreements during those times? the concept of human rights comes from catholic priests criticisms of the treatment of natives in Americas. Forgot the whole endorsing slavery thing in catholic church and most protestant churches? the appeal to historgaphy here is weak

> I consider being a good Catholic to be hard, it's not something which I as a man desire to do. I don't like not being able to have pre marital kissing, i do not like being barred from drinking, i do not like these things, its hard. But I obey them because that is where the objective truth is. If I followed my feelings I would just pick and choose the parts I like and dislike, as most protestants do. Stay rooted to the facts, submit humbly to Gods law as it is and not as you desire.

my cousin is catholic. i went to her wedding. she is divorced. when I went to see them and aunt and uncle for easter, i saw her and her two mixed white - nicaraguan-american kids. she was tired all the time as a working class single mom. she was dealing with recent trump cuts in the department of veteran affairs and could barley get out the couch as i played with kids before dinner. yet she is raising them in catholic school and even taking them to jesus day or week. i forget what its called. my point is she not a good catholic cause she didn’t cross the dots and ts?

>>18072872 (OP)
This "hyper-grace" stuff is just Antinomianism. You're getting mixed up about issues we solved in the Reformation; if you end up concluding Martin Luther believed in works salvation, you have missed the boat.

A major element of this error is that Antinomians are invariably synergists. This is unsurprising, since, in divorcing the Christian's transformation from the power of God's grace, the synergist inevitably affirms either a heresy which compromises the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice or a heresy which compromises the necessity of holiness and repentance.

There are two ways we may consider the issue of the relationship between the law and the gospel: theologically, and practically. Theologically, the impenitent cannot be saved, but, nobody is saved by virtue of their repentance. Not a single thing about the believer (including their faith) contributes to their justification, rather, the sole meritorious cause of their justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. Even the best of saints believes imperfectly and repents imperfectly, and on account of his own repentance and faith he could not be saved. This then is the only reason why you do not count good works, or count sins, as if there is a threshold which would forfeit your salvation: because Christ has performed all and payed for all.

Practically, a preacher is to be cautious neither to withhold the law nor place his people back under it. The law is holy and good, but it cannot bring righteousness. We must be careful not to preach the law as a condition of salvation and tell people that if they do not do good enough they will not be saved, so the preaching of the law should always be subjoined with the assurance of forgiveness in Christ which belongs to the gospel. The law is to be used in three ways: to expose to us our sin and misery, to restrain the evil of the wicked, and to show us how we might please God. And in these ways the law is absolutely to be preached to all men.

>>18073316
She is not a good catholic because we do not believe in divorce.

being tired all the time, being a single mom struggling to raise her kids financially could be completely applied to an athiest woman.

I hate to be cruel but this just has nothing to do with the theological argument, suffering does not entitle someone salvation, nor does it exempt you from objective rules.

I'm not saying this women isn't going to be saved, she could be saved.

No amount of hard work makes mortal sins venial.

>>18073339
whelp they seemed like good catholics. we didn’t have meat on friday and prayed before dinner. and raising her kids catholic. so who are you to judge who is or not a good catholic? i didn’t ask why they divorced, but the guy she married brought his parents from nicaraguan so i think i can infer.

>>18073362
>I'm not saying this women isn't going to be saved, she could be saved.

I don't know if this woman is going to confession or not, if she is not I would not presume her case to be as well as you describe.

Which is why I said
>I'm not saying this women isn't going to be saved, she could be saved.

This is very fellacious arguing.

If being reconciled to God so as to avoid hell doesn't include a moral transformation, then paradise is going to be a garbage dump because it will be full of people who just keep sinning without correction.

>>18073408
It also makes it really stupid that some people will be saved and some won't if there's no truly appreciable difference between the groups.

>>18073367
1. I’m not catholic. so for me, confession is done though you and God. if you want to confess to a priest or pastor that is fine, but it is optional
2. i drive 8 hours to get there. this was the first time i meet them in years and first time meet my first cousins. i had been denied in october to see them. i had taken off work for it and i wanted to enjoy time with my family. sorry i didn’t interview her for every sin she did and why she got divorced.

>>18073450
It's not optional, you are just in obstinate disobedience of God's law that you need to confess to your pastor.

>>18073408
you are applying the moral plane of existence in this universe to that one. its foolishing to think that way.

>>18073453
Confession is valuable, but in Christ’s finished work it’s not a legal requirement. our forgiveness rests on His grace, not on perfect compliance with rituals. you can’t expect the working class single mom of two to confess everything to a pastor.

>>18073453
There is no law of God requiring confession of sin to the minister (which was historically not developed as a practice until the middle ages).

>>18073475
> you can’t expect the working class single mom of two to confess everything to a pastor.

Non-sequitor. Yes you can. Work has existed since the beginning of time.

>>18073477
> There is no law of God requiring confession of sin to the minister
it is entirely optional

>>18073459
Jesus told people to "be perfect" and "go and sin no more." Do you think he was just going around telling people to do impossible things for kicks?

>>18073479
the point im getting at is we all fall from the hyper perfectionist idea of bring super Christian because that doesn’t exist. my belief is, either consciously or subconsciously, you believe jesus christ as lord and savior and you are saved. this spplies to all christians, but to anyone who accepts Jesus christ as lord and savior be they hindus, muslims, atheists. if they accept christ, they are saved.

>>18073499
Your belief is wrong, because its your made up belief. You go to confession, because that is the teaching of the Church and has been since the beginning of the Church.

You are not God, your feelings about how to get saved do not determine salvation, God determines salvation, God instituted the sacrament of Confession, simple as.

>>18073499
>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’

>>18073486
he also stopped a women from being stoned to death for adultery. you are being a legalistic pharisee. nothing i said here endorses sin, im saying it is irrelevant to salvation. you shouldn’t sin, but it is not required to not sin to get into kingdom of heaven

>>18073510
(not the Antinomian)
The New Testament knows nothing of any "sacrament of confession", our Lord instituted but two sacraments, the five spurious sacraments were added centuries later by the church which erroneously and blasphemously supposed it had the authority to add to God's means of grace. Confession cannot be a sacrament, since it has no physical sign nor is it instituted by divine promise and command.

>>18073539
Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, which is the authority the doctrine is based on. Admittedly my research on the reformation has only covered Luther and Henry VIII so my scope of knowledge cannot argue with Calvin or zwingli at the current moment.

>>18073530
Comparing the Law of God and of The Church to the Law of the Jewish Authority is a lutheran error.

>>18073510
>Your belief is wrong, because its your made up belief. You go to confession, because that is the teaching of the Church and has been since the beginning of the Church.

I go to confession with God. what is the difference between confession with God and confession with a pastor?

>You are not God, your feelings about how to get saved do not determine salvation, God determines salvation, God instituted the sacrament of Confession, simple as.

I never said i was God. I said God has chosen me as part of the elect.

>>18073560
Because you are not a pastor. God established a Clergy, and you are ignoring the clergy entirely.

If the clergy exists, and you are attacking as if it doesn't, this is where the problem arrives. I do not concede that every man is a priest.

>He will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life, while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but injustice, there will be wrath and fury. There will be affliction and distress for everyone who does evil, both the Jew first and the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, both the Jew first and the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
(Romans 2)

>>18073569
1. how does confession work?
2. am i suppose to confess every little sin to them?
3. what if it’s something i think is wrong, but not sure if a sin or not?

>>18073589
You are supposed to confess every mortal sin, because mortal sins remove you from a state of grace.

a mortal sin is any grave matter with deliberate consent and full knowledge.

If you think someone is a mortal sin, and commit it anyways you have comitted a mortal sin even if it was not a mortal sin.

If you have a good faith honest confession and forget a sin, you are forgiven, but you need to confess that sin in your next confession.

>>18073585
This speaks to unbelievers or self-righteous Jews who rely on law, not grace. True believers under grace are not judged by works (Romans 8:1 — “no condemnation”)

>>18073596
something*

>>18073547
>Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins
This was a subordinate authority to His own, not an authority to do so on their own. As a minister has authority but only to implement the command of the king, in whom alone true authority is vested, so likewise the authority to forgive sin is only to declare to the sinner that he is forgiven or not and to act accordingly with the same. The power to forgive sin is the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by which the elders open or shut the door of the kingdom (which is the Church), or bind or loose from sin. Thus, the authority to forgive sins as our Lord bestowed consists only in the preaching of the gospel and the administration of church discipline, and not in restoring the grace of justification (which cannot be lost) or imposing works of penance.
>>18073553
The law of Moses is the law of God since it was instituted by Him through the prophet. Nor can it be objected that the law of Moses consisted of Jewish ceremonies which are now abrogated, since he also gave the moral law especially in the ten commandments. The only laws which the Church may institute however are those which concern order and comeliness, for the smooth operation of the Church, and not laws which bind the conscience which belongs to God alone.

>>18073597
Romans 8:3b-4
>And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Romans 8:12-13
>Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

>>18073596
> a mortal sin is any grave matter with deliberate consent and full knowledge.
thats vague as fuck. now i got to split hairs about what id or not moral sin. god will forgive my sins because i rarely sin. im not even championing myself, i am diagnosed autistic, hence hard for me to sin. thats part of being elect.

>>18073615
Ok Jew. You are being dishonest.

>>18073612
The law is already fulfilled in us through Christ. We don’t obey to be saved. We live by the Spirit because we are already saved. Grace makes us alive, not the flesh.

Sigh. Antinomian is arguing in circles and is making the same argument again.

Pharoh heart hardening? What else can it be?

>>18073633
>>18073633
explain to me how you aren’t just arguing works + faith. if you are, define how much works? i want to hear your argument.

>>18073644
Work is the sacrament of baptism and confession. WORK IS NOT GOOD CHARITABLE ACTS.

work is
the SACRAMENTS
work is not
CHARITABLE ACTS

Faith requiring charitable acts is a given

Faith(with works) and Works (sacraments) is my position

>>18073647
Faith (with charitable acts) and Works (sacraments) to clarify

>>18073647
so you believe the same thing i do (hyper-grace). good. glad we cleared that up

Hyper-grace does not have sacraments.

Faith(with cahritable acts) without Works (Sacraments) cannot save.

Hope that clears it up you dishonest liar.

>>18073585
This is the first use of the law >>18073319
The purpose of this is to reproach the Jews for their sin, whereby they realize their need for Christ. It is true, one who is good and obeys will receive eternal life. The point of the apostle is not that we must therefore do good to inherit eternal life but that nobody can meet this condition, therefore all need Christ (see chapter 3)

"My position is that Faith without charitable acts, or works can save"

"My position is that Faith with charitable acts and works can save"

>sO yOU beLiEvE tHE saMe ThINg i dO gLaD wE ClEaReD ThAT uP

another thing, there is conscious and subconscious belief in christ. there are people who know the bible and know without knowing the words of the bible and accepted jesus. hence some native in the jungle who never saw a bible has subconsciously believed Jesus if lord and savior. that is part the chosen elect process.

>>18073666
i never said without charitable acts. i said it is OPTIONAL. ok answer this, is babies and children in hell? after all no charitable acts right?

>>18073675
If your faith is not with works (charitiable acts) and Works (Sacraments) you CANNOT be saved.

I am telling you it is not optional, it is MANDATORY.

I believe that babies are in hell because they are born with original sin and are unbapitized, meaning they warrant hell.
Some argue God has mercy on them, which I concede is a possibility but that is not my position.

>>18073658
>>18073658
> Hyper-grace does not have sacraments.
you are baptized when you accept Jesus christ as lord and savior and confess with God. the sacraments are fulfilled. i do not have to donate a million dollars to joel olesteen.

>>18073682
Sacrament(S)

If you don't believe in more than 1 sacrament its not sacrament(s).

Wrong. You are switching back to once saved always saved after previously conceding apostosy is possible. Ridiculous nonsense.

joel olesteen has nothing to do with sacraments at all, and nothing i have said has indicated I am a protestant.

>>18073682
Why do you keep babbling about giving money to false teachers?

assuming there is me the Catholic, the Calvanist and the antinomian bringing up joel oelstein and donating money is just not even relevant

>>18073679
>>18073679
>charitiable acts
i do charitable acts all the time. i am part of God’s chosen elect. there is no agreed upon definition of what the max accounting for those charitable acts is.

> I believe that babies are in hell because they are born with original sin and are unbapitized, meaning they warrant hell.
Some argue God has mercy on them, which I concede is a possibility but that is not my position.
here’s why you are wrong. they are born with subconscious belief in jesus christ. when i was born, I remember starts all flying past me in space. that is my first memory in existence. that was my spirit.

>>18073699
i'm going to assume this is a troll or you are mentally ill.

>>18073692
>If you don't believe in more than 1 sacrament its not sacrament(s).

that is two i just listed

>Wrong. You are switching back to once saved always saved after previously conceding apostosy is possible. Ridiculous nonsense.

i never conceded apostasy wasn’t possible. i am part of the elect so that won’t happen for me.

>joel olesteen has nothing to do with sacraments at all, and nothing i have said has indicated I am a protestant.

how is your charitable actions different from joel? people need actual charity and not grifters demanding money.

>>18073719
ok so this is a 4th person who is not the antinomian but some evangelical/baptist i think

im tuckered out so im just not going to engage with you because your arguments are very dishonest

>>18073702
the stars flying past is literally the first memory of existence. i knew it when i was born in the hospital. that was my spirit. that is how i know i am part God’s chosen elect. can you actually explain that memory and how i knew it from birth?

>>18072872 (OP)
First position sounds pretty much like nominalism or mere intellectual assent to me. Pretty much a dumbed down reading of 1 John. Lordship salvation is the other extreme brought over from Puritan insecurity, as often the truth is between.

>>18073906
what is the middle ground between the two? what is it called?

>>18073933
I dont usually subscribe to confessions, but Article 22 of the Belgic Confession is very fine

>>18072872 (OP)
>Which do you believe?
Neither. Repentance of sin is unnecessary for salvation, but it does affect your standing with God in this life. Too, good works are rewarded in Heaven. But if you believe in Jesus you could live a life of sin and still be saved; That is what the Bible clearly teaches.
>I believe if you believe Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you are going to heaven so I would land Hyper-Grace camp.
Well, then you aren't using a consistent definition of Hyper-Grace. Congratulations on being saved.

>>18072872 (OP)
If you claim that Jesus didn't pay for all of your sin you are mocking the Creator of the Universe.
And ultimately he'll hold you to it
>ackhually, I have to work for my salvation, PLEASE judge me by my works!
>k, you're going to Hell lol

>>18073038
>>18073060
Enjoy Hell.
>>18073127
>jesus said hell is separation from God.
Chapter and verse. King James.
>>18073168
No one cares what you think. You are going to spend eternity burning in Hell without a moment's rest.
>>18073145
>lets say we agree greater and lesser sin
That's not what he's saying, he's a Catholic that believes you can be saved one week, damned the next, saved the next, etc. Don't grant it anything. It's a child of Hell.

>>18074108
Tick tock :)

>>18074107
>ackhually, I have to work for my salvation, PLEASE judge me by my works!
>k, you're going to Hell
Exactly. I'm so glad that I will not be judged for my sins.

>>18074108
uh no shit. once saved always saved has been disproven to an absurd extent.

>>18074117
Those flames just got hotter. Enjoy.

judgment doesnt exist niggas are not going to be happy on judgment day

>>18074118
Tick tock ;)

>>18074117
You're just saying that Jesus doesn't really save you. If Jesus doesn't pay it all, you're just trying to make yourself your own savior.

>I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
...
>For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
>Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Bearing in mind that Jesus came for everyone, and that he came for sinners, it stands that we are all sinners saved only be Jesus.

>>18074128
Yep.
>Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
>If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
>If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Remember, though. You are talking to a brown Catholic that doesn't care what the Bible says.

>>18074140
Don't look up what John "Chrysostom" had to say about that passage. It's absolutely insane.
At least Augustine had to admit that this passage was talking about a man that was a big sinner but was still saved (because that's literally what it says).

>>18074140
you mean this verse about purgatory?

also i'm white, and racism is not a sign of the holy ghost dwelling in your heart, buddy.

if man is predestined to be saved by God, how would that mean that man can be saved by man?

What are you even talking about nutcase. That's been my position the entire time.

>>18074182
so you believe that faith alone saves but you have to go to purgatory first?
so Sola fide is still essentially correct?

>>18074182
>purgatory
Your brain is brown.

>>18074188
i'm going to respond as though this was a genuine comment.

If you are baptized, you are immediately in a state of grace.

Assuming man does not intervene by his free will, God wills all men to be baptized.

This is not faith alone, I do not support faith alone. I have said my position is faith and sacraments dozens of times.

>>18074192
How is the "man himself saved" when his works were burnt up... if he was saved by works? Which works saved him?

If Baptism DID confer a "state of grace" then anything which put you out of a state of grace would invalidate the baptism. Showing that baptism is a "good work."
If a man whose works are burnt up is still saved, then what shall we make of this?

>>18074195
you do realize works means sacraments right?

there are 2 debaits in sole fida

1. Faith must be true faith (which I am assuming we agree on

2. Sacraments (works) are necessary for salvation

I am arguing works as in 2. You would seem to be arguing works as in 1, which I just assumed to be true, but if you are rejecting 1, you are just a bad faith actor oncesaved always saved moron and that subject is beyond debate.

>>18074195
Exactly.

That is the proper understanding.

Baptism puts you in grace, if you are put out of a state of grace you are in a state of sin which is what confession is for. Now you are understanding.

>>18074199
>you do realize works means sacraments right?
no because this is nonsense.
>Sacraments (works) are necessary for salvation
Are you really trying to imply that these are the ONLY definition of "good works"?

>>18074202
>if you are put out of a state of grace you are in a state of sin which is what confession is for
I thought you were saying the evil works being burnt up were being burnt up by purgatory.
What is burning up the evil works and what is the end state of a man who has no good works (confession is a "good work" that undoes the bad in your worldview, at least >>18074199 says so)?

>>18074202
>>18074199
Have fun burning.
>>18074210
Why are you trying to educate people who have decided to reject Jesus long ago?

>>18074223
Seeing Catholick arguments deboonked made me respect Baptist positions... which probably led to me getting saved. Or helped, at least.
I was an atheoid when I was younger, and I thought Catholicism was just the way Christianity was. Seeing it proven wrong in favor of biblical arguments was eye-opening. Maybe bystanders will read these conversations...
PROBABLY NOT though so i guess you have a point.

>>18074227
Alright. I mean it's 4chan feel free to waste your time as you see fit. Just remember they hate you because they hate Jesus.

DAE think the "works of the law" as Paul uses it mainly means the Jewish ritual law, things like sacrifices, circumcision, observing holy days and dietary restrictions, etc.? Because sometimes that really seems like what he means, and those are the things Paul repeatedly throws down as unnecessary and ineffective, while he upholds the importance of following moral rules, and he says "love fulfills the law."

Romans 3:28-30
>For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? Yes, of gentiles also, since God is one, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

And "faith" doesn't just mean intellectually accepting a proposition but demonstrating trust in God by acting according to the moral law (the law written on our hearts, gentiles and Jews alike), hence all the verses that really look like Paul and Jesus are saying that people will be judged based on what they do which have to be reinterpreting as only applying to non-Christians or have to be thought of absurdly as if Jesus is winking at people the whole time because what his real intention is for you to try to obey him and realize that you're pathetic and totally unable to so you should just give up and believe that he did the hard work for you.

>>18074239
Paul says the Law is "holy and just and good."
There is no logical reason that some good works save and others don't.

When Paul says
>is God the God of the Jews only?
recall that he previously states
>For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
>Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
>In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

it's not that the Law is "Jewish", it's that the Law is written in every man's heart, only that the Jews were "given the oracles of God."

The specific laws relating to the physical nation and physical priesthood are changed and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. That's it.

>>18074239
>DAE think the "works of the law" as Paul uses it mainly means the Jewish ritual law, things like sacrifices, circumcision, observing holy days and dietary restrictions, etc.?
Yes, this is a common "thought" amongst prideful white trash nutcases.
>And "faith" doesn't just mean intellectually accepting a proposition but demonstrating trust in God by acting according to the moral law
Your subversion is noted. Enjoy the flames.

The level of hatred these Protestants have after the Catholic Church has deliberately softened her positions to reconcile with them is outstanding.

I would never say I hate a protestant for practicing something approximating Christianity in good faith.

>>18074284
Trillions of years from now you're going to be thrashing around in agony, burning in Hell.

>>18074284
I'm pretty confident that at least the enjoy-hell anon is just trolling, but unfortunately Poe's law does still apply

>>18074290
>Believing the Bible is extreme
No, you've just had your mind twisted by porn and Jewish cartoons.

>>18074252
>Paul says the Law is "holy and just and good."
It's things like that section of Romans (a good portion of Romans 7) that really make me wonder if Marcion was right and Paul's letters got messed with by a very pro-(Jewish) law person who didn't like him.

Compare Romans 7:15-19
>I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells within me. For I know that the good does not dwell within me, that is, in my flesh. For the desire to do the good lies close at hand, but not the ability. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.

with Philippians 3:4b-7
>If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ."

Could the person who describes his "righteousness under the law" as blameness at the same time have the idea that the law is amazing and perfect and the only problem with it is his own inability to follow it? It seems very dissonant.

Though at the same time Paul uses "law" to refer to enough potentially different things "law of works, law of faith, law of sin and death, law of the spirit, law of God, etc." that there might be other ways to make sense of it.

It is very evident when the New testament is referring to the Jewish law or the new law, the error that it is in any case referring to the Catholic law is always malicious and dishonest.

>>18074323
Why are you purposely ignoring the context of Philippians 3? Or are you really not getting it?
He's saying to not believe judaiziers who boast of their jewishness, because Paul is just as jewish, if not more. yet Paul himself has NO confidence in the flesh/circumcision.

>For WE [that includes Paul] are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
>Though I MIGHT also have confidence in the flesh [I noticed you purposely didn't quote this full verse]

>who describes his "righteousness under the law" as blameness
He is being facetious as he also is several other times in his epistles when alluding to false teachers. He is "blameless" compared to them. He was circumcised, didn't pollute himself, etc etc. He had nothing THEY could blame him for.

>>18074184
> if man is predestined to be saved by God, how would that mean that man can be saved by man?

wtaf are you talking? God predestined salvation for the chosen elect. man acted though, which is though predestination.

>What are you even talking about nutcase. That's been my position the entire time.

wot

>>18074434
I'm aware that Paul has a sense of humor and is occasionally sarcastic, but I'm not seeing the humor in Philippians 3 even with the context, sorry. And he doesn't say "blameless" compared to the other teachers; he just says blameless. And everything he said before that would seem to be straightforwardly true. He was circumcisied, he was a member of the tribe of Israel, he was a Hebrew born of Hebrews, he was a Pharisee, and he was a persecutor of the church. And the tone seems serious to me, not, e.g. like how in 2 Corinthians 12 where he seems to make a big deal out of how silly it feels to him to boast about having personal visions and revelations. Here he just says it -- "as to righteousness under the law, blameless."

>>18072872 (OP)
>It literally doesn’t matter what you do, if you believe in Jesus Christ you are going to heaven cause thats what the bible.
The Bible says that if one truly accepts Jesus as his Lord, his actions will reflect it.

>Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me.
John 14

>Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’
Matthew 7

>What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
James 2

>Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6

>>18074791
To clarify my alternative way of thinking about this, it's that rather than the law of the torah being unable to save anyone because it was too difficult to follow, I think it's possible that the earliest Christians (at least the earliest Pauline Christians) thought the Jewish law was unable to save anyone because 1. Imposing any specific set of rules on yourself and following it by sheer effort doesn't deal with the root of the problem, which is the sinful nature inherited from the fall, (the body of sin which is crucified with Christ) and 2. The Jewish law may not even have been entirely from God, as argued for in Ptolemy's letter to Flora: http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm

>>18074815
Point 1 I think agrees with the sermon on the mount in places where Jesus takes simple rules like "don't murder" and "don't commit adultery" and replaces them with rules against being angry and being lustful. The first two rules are superficial corrections, the latter two rules require change on a deeper level. And I think it agrees with Paul's idea that love fulfills the law because love does no harm to a neighbour. To genuinely love requires a deeper change than just forcing yourself to follow some specific set of rules that superficially approximates love. If you can do it, it makes following the rules that approximate love easy, but how do you make yourself love? That requires help. So "God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us."

>>18074835
And it fits with all the business about "Do not be conformed to this age but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" and "put off the old self and clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness" and "And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit."

>>18074434
>Though I MIGHT also have confidence in the flesh [I noticed you purposely didn't quote this full verse]
In my translation (NRSV) it just says "though I myself have reasons for such confidence." There is no might in my translation. I left it out only because it was half a sentence.

>>18074867
Oh wait, that was the NIV. But the NRSV also lacks a might. (I'm just using the internet). So neither of my two favourite translations have a might.