The Christian Dark Ages of Europe

[BilliardsBall]

from the explanation you just made you don't really know.

I don't really know what, exactly? I know that the NT says over 150 times, "Trust Jesus for salvation."

 

[metis]

Why is it wrong for me to take clear statements like John 3:16, when over 150 NT verses have some variant of "Trust Jesus, be saved!"?

The verse says "... those who believe in him...", but if one says they believe in Jesus but don't do what Jesus says, I put forth the opinion that (s)he actually doesn't believe in Jesus.

Plus the Parable of the Sower & the seed indicates that one may lose what they may think is their "salvation", plus Paul tells the flock to seek after those who have fallen away and try to bring them back into the fold.

The "once saved, always saved" belief that some have is betrayed by the scriptures, plus it's an extremely dangerous opinion to have since it may lead to immoral carelessness that could indeed jeopardize one's salvation. Gandhi noted this in that all too many Christians who have that belief acted as if their morals didn't matter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The verse says "... those who believe in him...", but if one says they believe in Jesus but don't do what Jesus says, I put forth the opinion that (s)he actually doesn't believe in Jesus.

Plus the Parable of the Sower & the seed indicates that one may lose what they may think is their "salvation", plus Paul tells the flock to seek after those who have fallen away and try to bring them back into the fold.

The "once saved, always saved" belief that some have is betrayed by the scriptures, plus it's an extremely dangerous opinion to have since it may lead to immoral carelessness that could indeed jeopardize one's salvation. Gandhi noted this in that all too many Christians who have that belief acted as if their morals didn't matter.

Jesus came to set men free, now, not later. The "once saved" doctrine leads to witnessing--people who have assurance sure as sure witness their faith a lot more than others.

Again, since there are hundreds of verses about assurance--maybe thousands, "You'd ask a pastor or priest for MORE than hundreds of verses before accepting their doctrine?"

Jesus told us about many kinds of sin to commit, what CANNOT be forgiven is UNBELIEF. My Father said He'll see me through, who are we to say He maybe CANNOT?

 

[metis]

Jesus came to set men free, now, not later. The "once saved" doctrine leads to witnessing--people who have assurance sure as sure witness their faith a lot more than others.

That concept was totally alien to Christianity until Luther roughly 14 centuries later wanted to believe he was "saved", largely because of his own personal insecurities. Maybe it's a good time for you to read a biography on him.

Again, since there are hundreds of verses about assurance--maybe thousands, "You'd ask a pastor or priest for MORE than hundreds of verses before accepting their doctrine?"

You forget that I taught Christian theology for many years. On top of that, I quoted quite a few scriptures on this that show you're wrong, but you just blew them off, not even attempting to counter what they actually say.

Jesus told us about many kinds of sin to commit, what CANNOT be forgiven is UNBELIEF. My Father said He'll see me through, who are we to say He maybe CANNOT?

A newborn child has no belief in the Gospel, so is that baby sinning?

BTW, the only unforgivable sin, according to the NT, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That concept was totally alien to Christianity until Luther roughly 14 centuries later wanted to believe he was "saved", largely because of his own personal insecurities. Maybe it's a good time for you to read a biography on him.

You forget that I taught Christian theology for many years. On top of that, I quoted quite a few scriptures on this that show you're wrong, but you just blew them off, not even attempting to counter what they actually say.


A newborn child has no belief in the Gospel, so is that baby sinning?

BTW, the only unforgivable sin, according to the NT, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate your great knowledge of theology, and I would never blow off or take lightly our holy scriptures--but we do need to reconcile this tension we have between "trust Jesus" clear scriptureal statements and "do works" scriptures to which you've added, "do works to be saved". One possible reconciliation would be Ephesians 2: "Saved by grace . . . called to work." I agree that born again Christians, not unbelievers, should do Christian works, so the first step is trusting Jesus, something you'd agree with, but then we digress to "saved by grace (still, always)" and "saved by grace, assured (maybe!) by works".

Your first thesis seems to be:

"Jesus came to free people from a difficult burden of works under the Law, setting men free to do even more challenging works."

Another thesis you've implied (am I mistaken?) is:

"No one can know for sure how to get to Heaven, but besides working hard, have a priest, not a pastor, and do communion and many other things with Rome."

If you are correct regarding my need for works--you've pointed me to the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere--why should people become Catholics to do such works? (I'm asking, not being rhetorical.)

...And it wasn't "Luther invented X", it was Luther recognized the continual accretion of works in Rome (just like the Pharisees added Talmudic law to Mosaic law) and challenged Rome, as a member of Rome, to reform and repent. I'm not Lutheran, but if Luther or anyone sees what is scriptural, that would predate and supersede the authority of any given church and not just Rome. For example, I see in the OT "trust God for salvation and all things" and that predates the apostles, not just 325 AD, of course.

As you wrote, the sole unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit, however, you also know that it is unforgivable to reject Christ and the grace of Christ. Therefore, the two are equivalent. In context, the Pharisees saw in person miracles predicted to herald Messiah, and KNEW He was from God--and right there--the Spirit prompting them to trust Christ, they equated Christ with demons. Jesus said, if I may paraphrase, "You can call me a name and be forgiven, but if my Spirit prompts you to trust me but you don't, you will go to Hell." We know, thankfully, that "many of the priests joined the faith" in Acts, so many later did trust Jesus for salvation. Another issue, however, is you seem to be saying the Pharisees who obeyed the Law and Talmudic law were not able to be saved that way and had to do something else (trust Jesus) and not do something else (reject Jesus). There again, we agree!

And I promise to not take lightly "do works" scriptures as soon as you do not take lightly over 150 clear Bible statements of "Trust Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, for eternal life, period."

 

[metis]

I appreciate your great knowledge of theology, and I would never blow off or take lightly our holy scriptures--but we do need to reconcile this tension we have between "trust Jesus" clear scriptureal statements and "do works" scriptures to which you've added, "do works to be saved". One possible reconciliation would be Ephesians 2: "Saved by grace . . . called to work." I agree that born again Christians, not unbelievers, should do Christian works, so the first step is trusting Jesus, something you'd agree with, but then we digress to "saved by grace (still, always)" and "saved by grace, assured (maybe!) by works".

Your first thesis seems to be:

"Jesus came to free people from a difficult burden of works under the Law, setting men free to do even more challenging works."

Another thesis you've implied (am I mistaken?) is:

"No one can know for sure how to get to Heaven, but besides working hard, have a priest, not a pastor, and do communion and many other things with Rome."

If you are correct regarding my need for works--you've pointed me to the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere--why should people become Catholics to do such works? (I'm asking, not being rhetorical.)

...And it wasn't "Luther invented X", it was Luther recognized the continual accretion of works in Rome (just like the Pharisees added Talmudic law to Mosaic law) and challenged Rome, as a member of Rome, to reform and repent. I'm not Lutheran, but if Luther or anyone sees what is scriptural, that would predate and supersede the authority of any given church and not just Rome. For example, I see in the OT "trust God for salvation and all things" and that predates the apostles, not just 325 AD, of course.

As you wrote, the sole unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit, however, you also know that it is unforgivable to reject Christ and the grace of Christ. Therefore, the two are equivalent. In context, the Pharisees saw in person miracles predicted to herald Messiah, and KNEW He was from God--and right there--the Spirit prompting them to trust Christ, they equated Christ with demons. Jesus said, if I may paraphrase, "You can call me a name and be forgiven, but if my Spirit prompts you to trust me but you don't, you will go to Hell." We know, thankfully, that "many of the priests joined the faith" in Acts, so many later did trust Jesus for salvation. Another issue, however, is you seem to be saying the Pharisees who obeyed the Law and Talmudic law were not able to be saved that way and had to do something else (trust Jesus) and not do something else (reject Jesus). There again, we agree!

And I promise to not take lightly "do works" scriptures as soon as you do not take lightly over 150 clear Bible statements of "Trust Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, for eternal life, period."

Sorry, but I really don't have the time for this, plus all too often you post things that I do read and usually respond to, whereas you all too often virtually ignore responding to what I actually do post.

Again, the key is to understand "works under the law", which indeed Jesus and the Twelve taught was unnecessary.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but I really don't have the time for this, plus all too often you post things that I do read and usually respond to, whereas you all too often virtually ignore responding to what I actually do post.

Again, the key is to understand "works under the law", which indeed Jesus and the Twelve taught was unnecessary.

I do parse works of the law and Christian works, so let's keep it simple, then?

Jesus tells Christians "I will never leave or forsake you" so 1) why does He forsake me if I do less than stellar works now and 2) why is He less likely to forsake a Catholic than an evangelical?

Thanks.

 

[metis]

Jesus tells Christians "I will never leave or forsake you" so 1) why does He forsake me if I do less than stellar works now

That's between you and God.

We know what Jesus taught, so it's a matter of if we are going to actually obey what he taught? If the answer is "no", then it's appropriate that we have to wonder if we actually believe in Jesus or are we just paying him and God lip-service while going through the motions of "religion"?

2) why is He less likely to forsake a Catholic than an evangelical?

I have no reason to believe He does.

IMO, it boils down to whether we believe in Him to the point of committing our lives to Him, even if we have questions. As one priest I know said to me a few decades ago, if we don't question then we're not thinking. So, even if we question we still can commit ourselves to that which we do not completely understand.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's between you and God.

We know what Jesus taught, so it's a matter of if we are going to actually obey what he taught? If the answer is "no", then it's appropriate that we have to wonder if we actually believe in Jesus or are we just paying him and God lip-service while going through the motions of "religion"?

I have no reason to believe He does.

IMO, it boils down to whether we believe in Him to the point of committing our lives to Him, even if we have questions. As one priest I know said to me a few decades ago, if we don't question then we're not thinking. So, even if we question we still can commit ourselves to that which we do not completely understand.

You do know I agree with you? We should commit our lives, even with questions, fully! And I hope you will see soon that I HAVE responded to all your concerns. For some examples,

* you mentioned the Sermon on the Mount as invoking Christian works--I agree--but I think the point of the SOTM is to deny any chance of even the religious saying they're as good as God's own perfection

* you mentioned Matthew 7, and I said it seems to be a command to judge only after we receive Christ to get the big logs out

* you mentioned quite a number of other excellent verses on works, and my main concern is I see a tension between "Jesus set us free from the difficult Mosaic Law works, to the far more difficult Christian works" and "Jesus set us FREE".

This would be predicated on how salvation operates:

* Can I save me, by committing fully?

* Can Jesus save me, by committing fully?

A close look at the Bible seems to say humans cannot stop sinning (completely, they can stop some) this side of Heaven, and that no one was as fully committed to us, not even us, as Jesus in His passion and resurrection.

Thanks!

 

[Zita]

Jesus made an offering for sin, a cleansing, a way IMHO.

The offering must be distributed, the cleansing must be received, the way undertaken.

And if you're perfect, perhaps I can introduce you to some people I know seeking perfect spouses?!

I already have a perfect spouse!!! Sorry you think less of yourself,sounds like a personal problem to me.