AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

Nicodemus was all about theology. And what did Jesus tell him?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

---

I will agree with what you said. Does the RCC affirm this? Or add qualifiers to it?

That is an interesting facet to that story, I will give you that.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

---

I will agree with what you said. Does the RCC affirm this? Or add qualifiers to it?

---

I don't know. I was not the one whose leadership accused them of preaching a false Gospel.

That is pretty serious stuff.

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

---

I will agree with what you said. Does the RCC affirm this? Or add qualifiers to it?

---

Well Linus was the 2nd Pope after all.

---

I laughed.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, it seems that they have a HUGE love affair with Judaism but not for apostolic Christianity. We're on the verge of going to hell, while the Jews are the chosen people who God is preparing for a special plan of salvation (but it clearly didn't happen 2000 years ago).

---

YMMV, but I've run across plenty of evangelicals that see Jews as instrumental in the end times. Instead of trying to convert them, they spend a lot of time, effort, and money supporting Jews returning to Israel and then supporting the state of Israel in general. They think that once we hit a certain threshold of Jews in Israel, then the anti-Christ will come and the apocalyptic party fun times will get started.

---

You are talking about dispensationalism, which is a fervent, but minority position within broader Protestantism.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

---

I will agree with what you said. Does the RCC affirm this? Or add qualifiers to it?

---

I don't know. I was not the one whose leadership accused them of preaching a false Gospel.

That is pretty serious stuff.

---

Yes, it is serious. It would be why a protestant would want to evangelize to that group.

I will wait for clarification on if your gospel presentation is affirmed or modified.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Something as simple as justification by faith alone is not agreed upon and has been the main point on tension for centuries. This is nothing new.

Again, to get to the OP, I don't come across many Jewish people. And by that I mean none. Other than listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast occasionally. Just not many living in rural Texas.

---

The Catholic Church has said that one can believe they are "saved by faith alone" as long as they do not mean mere intellectual assent.

I think most Protestant agree that you can say you believe and that you are saved all day long, but if your actions are consistently and unapologetically unbiblical, you aren't a Christian. That's the "intellectual" faith alone Catholics reject.

Now if you say you are saved by faith in Jesus and because of that faith you are obliged to act in accordance with His will, then all we're doing is using different terms

There are more disagreements to parse out after that, but it's only a big disagreement for most Protestants because we're speaking past each other.

---

And once again, if I may be so bold as to add, the book of life doesn't list your doctrines but your deeds.

---

What would be the deeds written down for the thief on the cross?

---

Ask Christ when you see Him.

Though I'd wager it's probably better to build your theology on what Jesus taught His followers and told them to do, rather than select a descriptive verse (not prescriptive one) where the judge of creation pronounces a sentence. "What you have done to the least of these you have done to Me." Not, "make sure you exegete my every word so that I can judge your intellect."

---

I hold closely to the Gospel and loosely with theology outside of the Gospel.

---

If the gospel is so clear cut, why are there so many disagreements about it?

Theology is simply the study of God. So yes, the gospel will include theology since you can't understand the gospel without first understanding God and his word.

---

Disagree. A child can understand the Gospel In fact, that is Biblical for you Reformed.

The Gospel is sin came to the world through Adam, bringing death, and Jesus came to save everyone. That is Biblical also.
Jesus died for our sins and arose from the dead. And those who believe in Him receive the gift of eternal life. He did not come to indict or condemn the world, but that through Him the world could be saved. Biblical also.

That is the Gospel in my opinion. And I think most Christian's could agree with that.

Linus said it very well on a Charlie Brown Christmas.

---

I will agree with what you said. Does the RCC affirm this? Or add qualifiers to it?

---

I don't know. I was not the one whose leadership accused them of preaching a false Gospel.

That is pretty serious stuff.

---

Yes, it is serious. It would be why a protestant would want to evangelize to that group.

I will wait for clarification on if your gospel presentation is affirmed or modified.

---

I feel the same way about Lordship salvation proponents. In my opinion, that is a works based soteriology.

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

This post, that you commented "Great post" is Lordship salvation.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

So how does one determine how the works occurred? Completely through the work of the Holy Spirit? Or a synergistic effort of the believer and the Spirit?

The answer is only God knows. Not John MacArthur. Not the Pope. Not any man.

And both sides should be united for Christ. The argument is over how salvation occurs. And the results are the same in my opinion. Work of the devil from both sides. But "false" gospel goes way beyond the pale.

I get tired of the arrogance. Sorry.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

So how does one determine how the works occurred? Completely through the work of the Holy Spirit? Or a synergistic effort of the believer and the Spirit?

The answer is only God knows. Not John MacArthur. Not the Pope. Not any man.

And both sides should be united for Christ. The argument is over how salvation occurs. And the results are the same in my opinion. Work of the devil from both sides. But "false" gospel goes way beyond the pale.

I get tired of the arrogance. Sorry.

---

Why did you say this post was great, then?

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

This post, that you commented "Great post" is Lordship salvation.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

---

This thought process is exactly why reformed folks also have to believe in limited free will. If works are completely and utterly an act of the spirit/salvation, we are robots. Every time we sin the Holy Spirit must not have wanted us to do the good thing because He has complete ability to make us do that good thing. This moves from allowing us to sin to effectively making us sin because we had no hope to avoid it without His intervention. Why bother even warning people not to sin if the Holy Spirit is the only one who can stop it in the first place? Why does Jesus even bother telling people to do the will of His father if the whole time He knows it's outside of our control?

And to be clear, our works are not the CAUSE of our salvation. They are our willing cooperation with the God that saved us because He commands it. But each choice is ours to make. So if we consistently make the wrong one, how are our works not part of the equation?

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

So how does one determine how the works occurred? Completely through the work of the Holy Spirit? Or a synergistic effort of the believer and the Spirit?

The answer is only God knows. Not John MacArthur. Not the Pope. Not any man.

And both sides should be united for Christ. The argument is over how salvation occurs. And the results are the same in my opinion. Work of the devil from both sides. But "false" gospel goes way beyond the pale.

I get tired of the arrogance. Sorry.

---

I would say the Church that Jesus left knows. It's not just a pope. It's almost 2000 years of saints, theologians, bishops, etc that have sight the wisdom of the Spirit and worked these questions out in the councils

Quo Vadis? said:

---

On evangelizing and apologetics with Catholics and not with Jews?

I had the misfortune of dialogue with a rabid southern Baptist Pastor of a reformed church in North Carolina this weekend and we got into talking about how the Catholic Church added books, and how Mary is a Pagan Queen, and how the Septuagint was the works of the Antichrist, and that Christ giving the keys to the kingdom had nothing to do with the story of Eliakim in the Old Testament.

Not ascribing this to anyone here but I find that for all of their ability to read scripture they don't actually know anything about their faith other than rote memorization.

Secondly, it seems that they have a HUGE love affair with Judaism but not for apostolic Christianity. We're on the verge of going to hell, while the Jews are the chosen people who God is preparing for a special plan of salvation (but it clearly didn't happen 2000 years ago).

I was told that the masoretic text is more accurate because that's the text that Jews that used. I told him that Christ quoted from the Septuagint 30x as often as the masoretic, and St Augustine confirmed the Septuagint as canon at the Synod of hippo, but he told me those were extra biblical sources. I told him he had to use extra biblical sources to tell him the books the Jews used, and he then showed me a google AI that the Catholic Church invented the Septuagint at the council of Trent. I asked how the OO and EO had the deuterocanon in their bibles, and he said they were also Roman Catholic.

With regard to Mary he showed me a link of pagans using "Queen of Heaven" and argued that Bathsheba was never called a "Queen" even though she was the mother of king Solomon. I showed him the book of Kings where it says Solomon himself bowed to her and had a seat for her at his right hand. I also showed her how her title translated as "queen mother". He then said that she was a harlot and we are all kings in the line of royal priesthood.

In the end we agreed to disagree and talked about other things but I was shocked that this dude had a church and a flock of people who paid to hear his teaching.

What I was most struck by was his argument that the Masoretic text was superior to the Septuagint because "that's what the Jews used". It seems to me that there is a massive preference for Judaism in reformed circles than there is for Catholicism, even when I mentioned that Christian Jews used the Septuagint, he said they were Roman Catholic. He also didn't know that the Catholic Church had eastern churches as well.

---

Or focusing on non-believers in general. Seems like a wasted effort for sure. I think when they approach it like that its actual proselytizing. Evangelizing is a loving invitation to encounter Christ, while proselytizing is an attempt to persuade someone to change their beliefs and its usually done with a harsh approach that assumes those beliefs are entirely wrong. I think its only some Protestant churches. I know many protestants, in fact some of my best friends, that would never do that and we both share in our walk in Christ. Your Westboro Baptist folks are always going to be the outliers, not the norm. I think for some, its also a way to convince themselves that their beliefs are the truth without having ever explored those of the person their speaking to. Its a form of triumphalism.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

And the results are the same in my opinion.

---

What if you're wrong?

I'd much rather press into truth through thoughtful discussion (not trying to be arrogant - agree that God only knows). I just think there is too much to risk if we quickly run into the arms of unity.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

This post, that you commented "Great post" is Lordship salvation.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

---

This thought process is exactly why reformed folks also have to believe in limited free will. If works are completely and utterly an act of the spirit/salvation, we are robots. Every time we sin the Holy Spirit must not have wanted us to do the good thing because He has complete ability to make us do that good thing. This moves from allowing us to sin to effectively making us sin because we had no hope to avoid it without His intervention. Why bother even warning people not to sin if the Holy Spirit is the only one who can stop it in the first place? Why does Jesus even bother telling people to do the will of His father if the whole time He knows it's outside of our control?

And to be clear, our works are not the CAUSE of our salvation. They are our willing cooperation with the God that saved us because He commands it. But each choice is ours to make. So if we consistently make the wrong one, how are our works not part of the equation?

---

I'm not sure where your first paragraph came from. I'm curious about this sentence though.

They are our willing cooperation with the God that saved us because He commands it.

What do you mean by God saved us? Who is "us" and what aspect of salvation are you referring to to make you a willing cooperator?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

And the results are the same in my opinion.

---

What if you're wrong?

I'd much rather press into truth through thoughtful discussion (not trying to be arrogant - agree that God only knows). I just think there is too much to risk if we quickly run into the arms of unity.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

---

Scripture is clear that all who declare Jesus is Lord will be saved.

The argument about how one is able to do that is not salvific.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

And the results are the same in my opinion.

---

What if you're wrong?

I'd much rather press into truth through thoughtful discussion (not trying to be arrogant - agree that God only knows). I just think there is too much to risk if we quickly run into the arms of unity.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

---

And your high lighted part actually puts the onus on the believer, correct? And working out your salvation seems to be a work to me.

Why would one have "fear and trembling" if they are unconditionally elected by irrestible grace?

God saved us (Christians) through the death and resurrection of Jesus. We come to believe that and get baptized and receive God's grace and salvation. Now what? We have to live the life God commands of us. If we don't, are we really saved?

I think Catholics and most (maybe all) Protestants can agree with this. From there, Catholics believe that we continue to make the daily choice to cooperate with the Holy Spirit working within us. Our free will can potentially lead us to lose our salvation should we chose to stop cooperating.

The Calvinist/reformed view of all our good works being directly from the spirit and that we don't have any hand in cooperating with Him in these good things means that we have limited, if any, free will at all. We really had no ability to do the good thing or refuse the bad thing if He doesn't make us.

If you don't believe that last paragraph, then how do you get around once saved always saved? You aren't choosing to stay in it. You also can't chose to cooperate with God if you're outside of it. Therefore, you have limited free will to only chose evil and never chose good. Similarly, once saved, you can never stop choosing good because you can't lose your salvation.

If you don't believe that paragraph, I don't know how you don't revert back to paragraph 2 where our works after we are saved don't have consequences (good or bad). This gets labeled "works based", but any other explanation limits free will. Which is exactly what Calvin did, and Calvin is the inspiration of reformed theology.

If you believe in limited free will, that's fine, but I would disagree vehemently.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

And the results are the same in my opinion.

---

What if you're wrong?

I'd much rather press into truth through thoughtful discussion (not trying to be arrogant - agree that God only knows). I just think there is too much to risk if we quickly run into the arms of unity.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

---

And your high lighted part actually puts the onus on the believer, correct? And working out your salvation seems to be a work to me.

Why would one have "fear and trembling" if they are unconditionally elected by irrestible grace?

---

My commentary notes fear and trembling to be that of awe and reverence

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

And the results are the same in my opinion.

---

What if you're wrong?

I'd much rather press into truth through thoughtful discussion (not trying to be arrogant - agree that God only knows). I just think there is too much to risk if we quickly run into the arms of unity.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

---

And your high lighted part actually puts the onus on the believer, correct? And working out your salvation seems to be a work to me.

Why would one have "fear and trembling" if they are unconditionally elected by irrestible grace?

---

My commentary notes fear and trembling to be that of awe and reverence

---

Is not that still a work?

Is Lordship salvation a work?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

This post, that you commented "Great post" is Lordship salvation.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

---

This thought process is exactly why reformed folks also have to believe in limited free will. If works are completely and utterly an act of the spirit/salvation, we are robots. Every time we sin the Holy Spirit must not have wanted us to do the good thing because He has complete ability to make us do that good thing. This moves from allowing us to sin to effectively making us sin because we had no hope to avoid it without His intervention. Why bother even warning people not to sin if the Holy Spirit is the only one who can stop it in the first place? Why does Jesus even bother telling people to do the will of His father if the whole time He knows it's outside of our control?

And to be clear, our works are not the CAUSE of our salvation. They are our willing cooperation with the God that saved us because He commands it. But each choice is ours to make. So if we consistently make the wrong one, how are our works not part of the equation?

---

I'm not sure where your first paragraph came from. I'm curious about this sentence though.

They are our willing cooperation with the God that saved us because He commands it.

What do you mean by God saved us? Who is "us" and what aspect of salvation are you referring to to make you a willing cooperator?

---

With all due respect, if you are a Calvinist what difference does it make?

I've posted this before, but I'll say it again:

This reminds me of a conversation I overheard at McCalisters. Two guys were talking about how works based salvation is all wrong. One was sharing with the other that he was confronted with the idea that even freely saying yes to God's call must be a personal work.

His solution to that problem was to agree and accept limited free will. God picked him and God made him say yes to the invitation.

The Banned said:

---

I've posted this before, but I'll say it again:

This reminds me of a conversation I overheard at McCalisters. Two guys were talking about how works based salvation is all wrong. One was sharing with the other that he was confronted with the idea that even freely saying yes to God's call must be a personal work.

His solution to that problem was to agree and accept limited free will. God picked him and God made him say yes to the invitation.

---

It all comes down to free will. If there is free will, there is no TULIP.

Don't' Catholics believe you must be baptized to be saved (unless you're ignorant of this need)?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Don't' Catholics believe you must be baptized to be saved (unless you're ignorant of this need)?

---

We do believe that.

Don't most Protestants believe that a person who says they are saved by faith alone, yet refuses baptism because it's only symbolic, is likely not saved, that thing against the Word? If someone says they are saved through faith yet REFUSES baptism, what do you do with that?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

And can anyone explain the difference between Lordship salvation proponents saying works are necessary to "prove" one's salvation and any other works based soteriology?.

---

You answered your own question. One views works as a cause of salvation where another works are an outworking from salvation, without which you are not saved:

Heb. 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

---

So how does one determine how the works occurred? Completely through the work of the Holy Spirit? Or a synergistic effort of the believer and the Spirit?

The answer is only God knows. Not John MacArthur. Not the Pope. Not any man.

And both sides should be united for Christ. The argument is over how salvation occurs. And the results are the same in my opinion. Work of the devil from both sides. But "false" gospel goes way beyond the pale.

I get tired of the arrogance. Sorry.

---

Why did you say this post was great, then?

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69249089

---

You are correct. I did not read it carefully enough. Apologies.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Don't' Catholics believe you must be baptized to be saved (unless you're ignorant of this need)?

---

We do believe that.

Don't most Protestants believe that a person who says they are saved by faith alone, yet refuses baptism because it's only symbolic, is likely not saved, that thing against the Word? If someone says they are saved through faith yet REFUSES baptism, what do you do with that?

---

It is an interesting question but ultimately most Protestants don't believe baptism to be salvific. What we would do with that is encourage baptism as it is commanded.