dermdoc said:

---

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?

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

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.

---

So if Baptism is commanded but not salvific what's the point in the Baptism?

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

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?

---

I am not anti-works. I just don't believe works contribute to my right standing with God, through Christ. The verse talks about obedience and "your" salvation. So the implication is that I already have salvation - now it is about my synergistic work with the Spirit on my journey to become holy, or more obedient to his will.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

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.

---

So if Baptism is commanded but not salvific what's the point in the Baptism?

---

To be obedient. To make a public profession of your faith. To participate in the means of Grace.

What makes a baptism legitimate? Does an ordained priest need to facilitate? Can it occur anywhere?

---

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?

---

Zobel said:

---

what you're showing is the product of the protestant desire to systematize salvation which inevitably leads to strip ping it to only what is deemed essential - spiritual minimalism, which is spiritual poverty.

baptism is not a 'step' or a 'box to check' because there's not an algorithm or flow chart to salvation. you don't check a minimum number of boxes, or score a certain number of points. this kind of thinking is completely foreign to the scriptures.

instead we are called over and over again to be obedient - to the Lord, to His commandments, to our spiritual leaders and teachers. and we are called over and over again to be faithful to Christ. those two things are one and the same - one cannot be faithful and disobedient, or obedient and faithless. As St Paul puts it, the only thing that counts is faithfulness working through love.

we don't get to handwave things away because they are hard, or say it is worse to be disobedient when something is easy. the commandment of our God is clear - "be Holy, because I am holy" - "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" - "you must be blameless before Yahweh your God" - "Walk before me and be blameless"- "this commandment I command to you is not too hard, neither is it far off" - "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" - "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome" - whoever has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me."

If there is something where you are not obeying... stop! immediately! and repent.

because that's what faithfulness is. that's what is salvific, faithfulness to the Messiah is what saves you. as long as you are faithful, you are obedient, and that includes all of the good works and any checkbox you might do. this is exactly the message of St Paul to non-Jewish Christians about the Torah. if you obey Jesus the Messiah in faithfulness, and are obedient to the Holy Spirit, you will not only not break the commandments of the Torah but you will fulfill them, fill them up to overflowing.

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

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?

---

So, my purpose in asking this question was to point out the difference in gospel between a Protestant and a Catholic.

Also, do y'all not baptize babies? Therefore, is that just covering step one and then at some point they must choose the next step of believing? To me, that makes baptism just seem like some fruitless work, a box to check.

There are lots of things the Lord commands that we don't obey; if we obeyed everything He commanded then we'd be perfect and that's not possible. I do believe, however, it's a grave misstep to not be baptized, particularly since it's a fairly easy command to fulfill.

I'll also admit I'm on the fence about when a person should be baptized (the whole paedo vs believer's baptism thing), but I don't believe either to be salvific.

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what you're showing is the product of the protestant desire to systematize salvation which inevitably leads to strip ping it to only what is deemed essential - spiritual minimalism, which is spiritual poverty.

baptism is not a 'step' or a 'box to check' because there's not an algorithm or flow chart to salvation. you don't check a minimum number of boxes, or score a certain number of points. this kind of thinking is completely foreign to the scriptures.

instead we are called over and over again to be obedient - to the Lord, to His commandments, to our spiritual leaders and teachers. and we are called over and over again to be faithful to Christ. those two things are one and the same - one cannot be faithful and disobedient, or obedient and faithless. As St Paul puts it, the only thing that counts is faithfulness working through love.

we don't get to handwave things away because they are hard, or say it is worse to be disobedient when something is easy. the commandment of our God is clear - "be Holy, because I am holy" - "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" - "you must be blameless before Yahweh your God" - "Walk before me and be blameless"- "this commandment I command to you is not too hard, neither is it far off" - "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" - "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome" - whoever has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me."

If there is something where you are not obeying... stop! immediately! and repent.

because that's what faithfulness is. that's what is salvific, faithfulness to the Messiah is what saves you. as long as you are faithful, you are obedient, and that includes all of the good works and any checkbox you might do. this is exactly the message of St Paul to non-Jewish Christians about the Torah. if you obey Jesus the Messiah in faithfulness, and are obedient to the Holy Spirit, you will not only not break the commandments of the Torah but you will fulfill them, fill them up to overflowing.

---

I agree with everything you said and see that is how Protestants believe; Catholicism seems very perfunctory. I see you're saying it's not, but I think that's how most non-Catholics view it and is likely a main reason as to why they are evangelized to.

It seems evident there are true believers and saved individuals in both houses (Protestant and Catholicism) but the ones who think they are saved and are not, the hypocrites and posers, the ones who don't really understand the scriptures, they are the ones who make the other side believe that house is in the wrong altogether.

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

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?

---

So, my purpose in asking this question was to point out the difference in gospel between a Protestant and a Catholic.

Also, do y'all not baptize babies? Therefore, is that just covering step one and then at some point they must choose the next step of believing? To me, that makes baptism just seem like some fruitless work, a box to check.

There are lots of things the Lord commands that we don't obey; if we obeyed everything He commanded then we'd be perfect and that's not possible. I do believe, however, it's a grave misstep to not be baptized, particularly since it's a fairly easy command to fulfill.

I'll also admit I'm on the fence about when a person should be baptized (the whole paedo vs believer's baptism thing), but I don't believe either to be salvific.

---

Free will is at the center here. We're free to follow God's call or we're essentially action figures that God is playing with.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So it's possible there were a hundred other Pharisees in which God may have tried to intervene with, but it was ultimately Paul who accepted that calling?

---

Zobel said:

---

false dichotomy.

you don't have to limit free will to have God move first in grace.

anyway this is an old, old, old discussion. just read this - Chapter 11 is where it gets to this directly.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350813.htm

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So it's possible there were a hundred other Pharisees in which God may have tried to intervene with, but it was ultimately Paul who accepted that calling?

---

Are you trying to say that God wasn't constantly trying to reach out to every single Pharisee all the time? You think God was ignoring all the other Pharisees as He called Paul?

---

Zobel said:

---

This is silly. Not all are apostles, not all are teachers, not all have certain gifts. That doesn't mean they're not called or that God hasn't intervened.

Put another way - Christ Jesus died on the cross while all were at enmity with Him. He has already taken the first move for everyone's salvation. Before you and I were born He intervened to saved us. And the story of that intervention goes back to the first, to Abraham, even to before the creation of the world as St Paul says.

So absolutely God intervened to save all the Pharisees. Some accepted that calling, some did not.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So it's possible there were a hundred other Pharisees in which God may have tried to intervene with, but it was ultimately Paul who accepted that calling?

---

Are you trying to say that God wasn't constantly trying to reach out to every single Pharisee all the time? You think God was ignoring all the other Pharisees as He called Paul?

---

Yes I am saying I have no reason to believe other Pharisees saw a light, heard the voice of the Lord and became blinded. That was Paul, whom God chose.

---

Zobel said:

---

This is silly. Not all are apostles, not all are teachers, not all have certain gifts. That doesn't mean they're not called or that God hasn't intervened.

Put another way - Christ Jesus died on the cross while all were at enmity with Him. He has already taken the first move for everyone's salvation. Before you and I were born He intervened to saved us. And the story of that intervention goes back to the first, to Abraham, even to before the creation of the world as St Paul says.

So absolutely God intervened to save all the Pharisees. Some accepted that calling, some did not.

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So it's possible there were a hundred other Pharisees in which God may have tried to intervene with, but it was ultimately Paul who accepted that calling?

---

Are you trying to say that God wasn't constantly trying to reach out to every single Pharisee all the time? You think God was ignoring all the other Pharisees as He called Paul?

---

Yes I am saying I have no reason to believe other Pharisees saw a light, heard the voice of the Lord and became blinded. That was Paul, whom God chose.

---

Fair enough regarding the blinding light. But I firmly believe that God was constantly trying to reach all of the other Pharisees in whatever way he deemed best. Some accepted and some did not. I can't believe that God would be completely ignoring any person, much less people with authority in His Holy Land among His people.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So it's possible there were a hundred other Pharisees in which God may have tried to intervene with, but it was ultimately Paul who accepted that calling?

---

Are you trying to say that God wasn't constantly trying to reach out to every single Pharisee all the time? You think God was ignoring all the other Pharisees as He called Paul?

---

Yes I am saying I have no reason to believe other Pharisees saw a light, heard the voice of the Lord and became blinded. That was Paul, whom God chose.

---

Fair enough regarding the blinding light. But I firmly believe that God was constantly trying to reach all of the other Pharisees in whatever way he deemed best. Some accepted and some did not. I can't believe that God would be completely ignoring any person, much less people with authority in His Holy Land among His people.

---

So, God was trying his very best to reach all the Pharisees but ultimately failed to do so. Is that fair?

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That smells of universalism.

And God's sovereignty and man's unrestricted free will are an interesting juxtaposition.

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That smells of universalism.

And God's sovereignty and man's unrestricted free will are an interesting juxtaposition.

---

I don't see why free will and God's sovereignty have to be at odds at all. God is sovereign. In His sovereignty He wanted to give us a say to follow or not. The only reason we have any say is because He chose to give us one. We didn't go get it ourselves.

Weird comment, I know, but the Calvinistic view of God makes Him seem like the god from the show Supernatural. We aren't created to love Him. We're created to be His playthings.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Is it fair to say, at the very least, God chooses to reveal himself in bigger or lesser ways (as he did to Paul)? Since we can agree that none of us likely had anything close to his conversion story?

---

God reveals Himself to Abraham

---

Zobel said:

---

St Paul says yes in Romans 1.

---