Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

---

I believe He does save them. Calvinism is correct if it includes all.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

---

I believe He does save them. Calvinism is correct if it includes all.

---

I absolutely had no idea that doc was a universalist. It does make sense though.

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.

---

God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

---

"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995

---

Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

---

Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.

Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).

Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?

---

I am not postulating any more or less than you are my friend. But that's beside the point. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post above, but I generally agree with what you've written. I didn't go through every single point with a critical eye, but I read through it and found myself saying "yep, mmm hmm, indeed…".

But one place where I am sure we do disagree has to do with the premise in your reasoning that in order for something to be valid doctrine it must be found in scripture. Scripture itself never says that. So that's just a manmade tradition. But if that was the case we'd probably all still have to be ritually circumcised and we'd probably be Arians and still debating whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Mother of God … oh wait.

One thing Sacred Scripture does make very clear. The EKKLSIA is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth. Not one among many pillars. THE pillar.

Do some digging into ekklsia and what it meant to the Greeks who gave us that term and we can see it is much more than just a "church" in the modern sense that it has come to be understood as today.

Let's just dig into 1 and 2 Timothy. Both are fundamentally concerned with church governance and structure, and ekklsia language is woven throughout to ground that concern theologically.

1 Timothy is saturated with instructions about church order: qualifications for bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (3:113), protocols for widows (5:316), instructions on elders (presbyteroi) and their discipline (5:1725), rules for servants and masters (6:12). Paul is establishing a structured, hierarchical body with defined roles and accountability.

2 Timothy continues with this theme. Timothy himself is called to guard sound doctrine, appoint faithful men to teach others (2:2), and correct false teachers with apostolic authority (2:2426; 4:25). Again, governance and transmission of authority through a structured succession.

When Paul calls the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," he's not doing so in abstraction. He's just spent three chapters laying out how this body maintains truth through ordered leadership, sound doctrine, proper discipline, and succession. The ekklsia is corporate and structured because it must safeguard and transmit truth reliably across generations.

This is precisely what apostolic succession and hierarchical Church structure accomplish. The ekklsia as ekklsia, as an assembled, ordered and governed body, is the mechanism by which truth remains "pillar and foundation."

The visible, hierarchical Church with apostolic authority isn't a corruption of spiritual truth. It's the very form Christ gave His body to preserve that truth as he said himself in Matthew 16, and 18 and as clearly stated 1 Timothy 3:15, among other passages in Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

This is how the church got to be the disaster it was in the days of early reformers, Wycliffe and Hus. You have the common people being led by the church and these common people don't know what scripture says at all and they have to basically be slave to whatever the institution tells them to do, like paying indulgences for one. There were no checks and balances in place either in the church institution. The 1400s were an utter disaster with Popes just bribing and paying off the college of cardinals. At one time you have basically 3 popes existing all at once, with the people unsure of who they are supposed to follow. You have popes with concubines and all sorts of immoral nonsense that cannot even lead a Christian life themselves. The church was not even close to being aligned with scripture at this point. I agree that the Lord will not allow His church to fail, but it was an absolute mess when Luther came onto the scene.

ETA: would be interesting to play out an alternate reality of Pius 3 did not die 26 days into his office, when his aim was to put in place many reforms, just 14 years before Luther.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

---

I believe He does save them. Calvinism is correct if it includes all.

---

I absolutely had no idea that doc was a universalist. It does make sense though.

---

Put me in the heretic corner, I believe in like a purgatorial state with corrective punishment. God is sovereign and wins in the end.

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

This is how the church got to be the disaster it was in the days of early reformers, Wycliffe and Hus. You have the common people being led by the church and these common people don't know what scripture says at all and they have to basically be slave to whatever the institution tells them to do, like paying indulgences for one. There were no checks and balances in place either in the church institution. The 1400s were an utter disaster with Popes just bribing and paying off the college of cardinals. At one time you have basically 3 popes existing all at once, with the people unsure of who they are supposed to follow. You have popes with concubines and all sorts of immoral nonsense that cannot even lead a Christian life themselves. The church was not even close to being aligned with scripture at this point. I agree that the Lord will not allow His church to fail, but it was an absolute mess when Luther came onto the scene.

ETA: would be interesting to play out an alternate reality of Pius 3 did not die 26 days into his office, when his aim was to put in place many reforms, just 14 years before Luther.

---

I won't defend corruption and sinful men doing sinful things. But the truth of the church established by Christ and the unique DIVINE authorities he gave to his church is not undermined in the slightest by bad men doing bad things.

If it is you are putting your faith in a manmade collection of random books that some collection of self-proclaimed luminaries declared.

No infallible, divinely guided and protected church, no canon of scripture. If that is the state of things then Christianity is just an entropic, ever-devolving and shrinking collection of idiosyncratic, like-minded groups, spinning further and further away from the center of Truth into the darkness of relativism and Jesus Christ is a liar.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.

---

God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

---

"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995

---

Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

---

Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.

Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).

Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?

---

I am not postulating any more or less than you are my friend. But that's beside the point. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post above, but I generally agree with what you've written. I didn't go through every single point with a critical eye, but I read through it and found myself saying "yep, mmm hmm, indeed…".

But one place where I am sure we do disagree has to do with the premise in your reasoning that in order for something to be valid doctrine it must be found in scripture. Scripture itself never says that. So that's just a manmade tradition. But if that was the case we'd probably all still have to be ritually circumcised and we'd probably be Arians and still debating whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Mother of God … oh wait.

One thing Sacred Scripture does make very clear. The EKKLSIA is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth. Not one among many pillars. THE pillar.

Do some digging into ekklsia and what it meant to the Greeks who gave us that term and we can see it is much more than just a "church" in the modern sense that it has come to be understood as today.

Let's just dig into 1 and 2 Timothy. Both are fundamentally concerned with church governance and structure, and ekklsia language is woven throughout to ground that concern theologically.

1 Timothy is saturated with instructions about church order: qualifications for bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (3:113), protocols for widows (5:316), instructions on elders (presbyteroi) and their discipline (5:1725), rules for servants and masters (6:12). Paul is establishing a structured, hierarchical body with defined roles and accountability.

2 Timothy continues with this theme. Timothy himself is called to guard sound doctrine, appoint faithful men to teach others (2:2), and correct false teachers with apostolic authority (2:2426; 4:25). Again, governance and transmission of authority through a structured succession.

When Paul calls the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," he's not doing so in abstraction. He's just spent three chapters laying out how this body maintains truth through ordered leadership, sound doctrine, proper discipline, and succession. The ekklsia is corporate and structured because it must safeguard and transmit truth reliably across generations.

This is precisely what apostolic succession and hierarchical Church structure accomplish. The ekklsia as ekklsia, as an assembled, ordered and governed body, is the mechanism by which truth remains "pillar and foundation."

The visible, hierarchical Church with apostolic authority isn't a corruption of spiritual truth. It's the very form Christ gave His body to preserve that truth as he said himself in Matthew 16, and 18 and as clearly stated 1 Timothy 3:15, among other passages in Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

There is much we agree on. Obviously.

However, you said there's nowhere in scripture that says scripture only. But there is this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB1995

Why would we want to go outside scripture? We are equipped for every good work by using it. It's adequate. No need for anything else.

If I asked you to build a house for me, and I gave you the specific plans of how I wanted it built, but you added some things here, a window over there, a shower in the kitchen, that would not be a good thing.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

---

I believe He does save them. Calvinism is correct if it includes all.

---

I absolutely had no idea that doc was a universalist. It does make sense though.

---

Put me in the heretic corner, I believe in like a purgatorial state with corrective punishment. God is sovereign and wins in the end.

---

I love you, man, but I will stick with what the Bible tells me. And Jesus mentions hell a lot. Not a figurative place, a literal one.

""If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their Lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his Lord *said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' And his Lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.""
Matthew 18:8-9, 28-35 NASB1995


"I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.""
Matthew 25:43-46 NASB1995

""Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:42-48 NASB1995


I just don't see how you can square these with your current position.

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.

---

God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

---

"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995

---

Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

---

Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.

Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).

Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?

---

I am not postulating any more or less than you are my friend. But that's beside the point. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post above, but I generally agree with what you've written. I didn't go through every single point with a critical eye, but I read through it and found myself saying "yep, mmm hmm, indeed…".

But one place where I am sure we do disagree has to do with the premise in your reasoning that in order for something to be valid doctrine it must be found in scripture. Scripture itself never says that. So that's just a manmade tradition. But if that was the case we'd probably all still have to be ritually circumcised and we'd probably be Arians and still debating whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Mother of God … oh wait.

One thing Sacred Scripture does make very clear. The EKKLSIA is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth. Not one among many pillars. THE pillar.

Do some digging into ekklsia and what it meant to the Greeks who gave us that term and we can see it is much more than just a "church" in the modern sense that it has come to be understood as today.

Let's just dig into 1 and 2 Timothy. Both are fundamentally concerned with church governance and structure, and ekklsia language is woven throughout to ground that concern theologically.

1 Timothy is saturated with instructions about church order: qualifications for bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (3:113), protocols for widows (5:316), instructions on elders (presbyteroi) and their discipline (5:1725), rules for servants and masters (6:12). Paul is establishing a structured, hierarchical body with defined roles and accountability.

2 Timothy continues with this theme. Timothy himself is called to guard sound doctrine, appoint faithful men to teach others (2:2), and correct false teachers with apostolic authority (2:2426; 4:25). Again, governance and transmission of authority through a structured succession.

When Paul calls the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," he's not doing so in abstraction. He's just spent three chapters laying out how this body maintains truth through ordered leadership, sound doctrine, proper discipline, and succession. The ekklsia is corporate and structured because it must safeguard and transmit truth reliably across generations.

This is precisely what apostolic succession and hierarchical Church structure accomplish. The ekklsia as ekklsia, as an assembled, ordered and governed body, is the mechanism by which truth remains "pillar and foundation."

The visible, hierarchical Church with apostolic authority isn't a corruption of spiritual truth. It's the very form Christ gave His body to preserve that truth as he said himself in Matthew 16, and 18 and as clearly stated 1 Timothy 3:15, among other passages in Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

There is much we agree on. Obviously.

However, you said there's nowhere in scripture that says scripture only. But there is this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB1995

Why would we want to go outside scripture? We are equipped for every good work by using it. It's adequate. No need for anything else.

If I asked you to build a house for me, and I gave you the specific plans of how I wanted it built, but you added some things here, a window over there, a shower in the kitchen, that would not be a good thing.

---

Please understand that I don't mean to patronize, but that passage does not stand for the proposition that dogma and doctrine can only be derived from scripture. It says nothing of the sort. Scripture must be interpreted so even if scripture was all we needed to know what is valid dogma and doctrine, that would still require a human being to do the derivation and unless that human being is infallible in that derivation, then it's just one person's opinion relative to another person's opinion and another person's opinion and another person's opinion, ad infinitum. Without an infallible source external to scripture it's just opinion. We can't even get to the point of knowing what books belong in the canon of scripture to be able to make the Sola Scriptura argument unless some infallible source external to scripture declares it as such.

Fortunately for us, the Incarnate Son of God anticipated this dilemma would arise when he, the last Davidic king, would be absent, and like his ancestor in the Davidic line Hezekiah, gave his keys (authority) to his Eliakim (Peter) and further to his church (Matthew 18) and empowered it to do exactly that. All this is confirmed by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 when he reminds Timothy that the Ekklsia is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So yes, I certainly see the value and importance of scripture being useful as described in 2 Timothy 3:16, but:

1. We wouldn't be able to say with certainty that 2 Timothy is the inspired word of God without the Ekklsia declaring it so; and

2. Even with that certainty, 2 Timothy 3:16 says nothing about how dogma and doctrine are determined.

There is no principled way to determine what is dogma and doctrine outside of the Ekklsia. We should be thanking God that he gave it to us so that we are not prisoners of the tyranny of relativism that Sola Scriptura logically compels.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ok, so the semi-Pelagian view we have a God who is sovereign, knows all outcomes, and does in fact desire that all be saved, but yet he does not save them. Do I have the opposite of Calvinism correct?

---

I believe He does save them. Calvinism is correct if it includes all.

---

I absolutely had no idea that doc was a universalist. It does make sense though.

---

Put me in the heretic corner, I believe in like a purgatorial state with corrective punishment. God is sovereign and wins in the end.

---

I love you, man, but I will stick with what the Bible tells me. And Jesus mentions hell a lot. Not a figurative place, a literal one.

""If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their Lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his Lord *said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' And his Lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.""
Matthew 18:8-9, 28-35 NASB1995


"I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.""
Matthew 25:43-46 NASB1995

""Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:42-48 NASB1995


I just don't see how you can square these with your current position.

---

With the original Greek. And without a pre conceived bias (once you believe in ECT hell all Scripture is read through that lens). Jesus never used the word hell. He mentioned Gehenna. Paul never mentioned hell. At all. I have thoroughly dissected every one of the verses you mentioned and am too lazy to do it today.
And I am confident if there is an ECT hell then myself and my family are not going there. We will agree to disagree as Iknow I will not change your mind. And I believed in ECT hell for most of my life.
Shalom my friend.

Edited to add Do you believe in penal substitutionary atonement? That and the concept of ECT hell is usually tied at the hip.

Pierow said:

---

However, you said there's nowhere in scripture that says scripture only. But there is this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB1995

Why would we want to go outside scripture? We are equipped for every good work by using it. It's adequate. No need for anything else.

---

The verse you posted does not say what you want or need it to say to make your case. The verse does not say ONLY Scripture. There are scripture verses that show authority is not ONLY found in Scripture.

For example:
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

So then, is it like a pathway to salvation, starting with baptism, and as you perform mortal sin you have to get back on the path via the ways I shared? And, if you don't get back on the path, then you end up in purgatory for a time?

Can you have assurance of salvation until you perform a mortal sin and then regain that assurance once you've done the things I shared (confession, absolution, works)?

Additionally, Timothy was written ~200 years before the Bible (and decades before several other New Testament letters/books) was assembled so clearly that verse "scriptures" is not pertain to the Bible. The table of contents of the Bible were decided by oral tradition and what was taught to the church. The same authority' that made those decisions continues to exist today.

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.

---

God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

---

"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995

---

Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

---

Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.

Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).

Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?

---

I am not postulating any more or less than you are my friend. But that's beside the point. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post above, but I generally agree with what you've written. I didn't go through every single point with a critical eye, but I read through it and found myself saying "yep, mmm hmm, indeed…".

But one place where I am sure we do disagree has to do with the premise in your reasoning that in order for something to be valid doctrine it must be found in scripture. Scripture itself never says that. So that's just a manmade tradition. But if that was the case we'd probably all still have to be ritually circumcised and we'd probably be Arians and still debating whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Mother of God … oh wait.

One thing Sacred Scripture does make very clear. The EKKLSIA is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth. Not one among many pillars. THE pillar.

Do some digging into ekklsia and what it meant to the Greeks who gave us that term and we can see it is much more than just a "church" in the modern sense that it has come to be understood as today.

Let's just dig into 1 and 2 Timothy. Both are fundamentally concerned with church governance and structure, and ekklsia language is woven throughout to ground that concern theologically.

1 Timothy is saturated with instructions about church order: qualifications for bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (3:113), protocols for widows (5:316), instructions on elders (presbyteroi) and their discipline (5:1725), rules for servants and masters (6:12). Paul is establishing a structured, hierarchical body with defined roles and accountability.

2 Timothy continues with this theme. Timothy himself is called to guard sound doctrine, appoint faithful men to teach others (2:2), and correct false teachers with apostolic authority (2:2426; 4:25). Again, governance and transmission of authority through a structured succession.

When Paul calls the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," he's not doing so in abstraction. He's just spent three chapters laying out how this body maintains truth through ordered leadership, sound doctrine, proper discipline, and succession. The ekklsia is corporate and structured because it must safeguard and transmit truth reliably across generations.

This is precisely what apostolic succession and hierarchical Church structure accomplish. The ekklsia as ekklsia, as an assembled, ordered and governed body, is the mechanism by which truth remains "pillar and foundation."

The visible, hierarchical Church with apostolic authority isn't a corruption of spiritual truth. It's the very form Christ gave His body to preserve that truth as he said himself in Matthew 16, and 18 and as clearly stated 1 Timothy 3:15, among other passages in Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

There is much we agree on. Obviously.

However, you said there's nowhere in scripture that says scripture only. But there is this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB1995

Why would we want to go outside scripture? We are equipped for every good work by using it. It's adequate. No need for anything else.

If I asked you to build a house for me, and I gave you the specific plans of how I wanted it built, but you added some things here, a window over there, a shower in the kitchen, that would not be a good thing.

---

Why do you believe the book of 2 Timothy is scripture?

Quote:

---

Why do you believe the book of 2 Timothy is scripture?

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

So then, is it like a pathway to salvation, starting with baptism, and as you perform mortal sin you have to get back on the path via the ways I shared? And, if you don't get back on the path, then you end up in purgatory for a time?

Can you have assurance of salvation until you perform a mortal sin and then regain that assurance once you've done the things I shared (confession, absolution, works)?

---

There is a reason the early Christians were called "the Way". "Faith" has always been about following Jesus, not just "believing" in Him.

Mortal sin isn't just doing a bad sin, but doing it willingly and with full knowledge. It's choosing to walk away from the Way. So if you've stepped off the path, then yes, you need to get back on it. The things you mentioned are just describing the process of getting back on the path. A path that you can only get back onto by the grace and mercy of God the HE gives in the sacrament of confession. Not something complicated process we do by ourselves as a way of getting right with Him

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

So then, is it like a pathway to salvation, starting with baptism, and as you perform mortal sin you have to get back on the path via the ways I shared? And, if you don't get back on the path, then you end up in purgatory for a time?

Can you have assurance of salvation until you perform a mortal sin and then regain that assurance once you've done the things I shared (confession, absolution, works)?

---

There is a reason the early Christians were called "the Way". "Faith" has always been about following Jesus, not just "believing" in Him.

Mortal sin isn't just doing a bad sin, but doing it willingly and with full knowledge. It's choosing to walk away from the Way. So if you've stepped off the path, then yes, you need to get back on it. The things you mentioned are just describing the process of getting back on the path. A path that you can only get back onto by the grace and mercy of God the HE gives in the sacrament of confession. Not something complicated process we do by ourselves as a way of getting right with Him

---

I could be naive here, but I believe "the Way" is more in reference to Jesus is the only way, and only through faith in him can you receive eternal life. Not necessarily to be used as a verb.

CWeezy17 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

ve Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

So then, is it like a pathway to salvation, starting with baptism, and as you perform mortal sin you have to get back on the path via the ways I shared? And, if you don't get back on the path, then you end up in purgatory for a time?

Can you have assurance of salvation until you perform a mortal sin and then regain that assurance once you've done the things I shared (confession, absolution, works)?

---

There is a reason the early Christians were called "the Way". "Faith" has always been about following Jesus, not just "believing" in Him.

Mortal sin isn't just doing a bad sin, but doing it willingly and with full knowledge. It's choosing to walk away from the Way. So if you've stepped off the path, then yes, you need to get back on it. The things you mentioned are just describing the process of getting back on the path. A path that you can only get back onto by the grace and mercy of God the HE gives in the sacrament of confession. Not something complicated process we do by ourselves as a way of getting right with Him

---

I could be naive here, but I believe "the Way" is more in reference to Jesus is the only way, and only through faith in him can you receive eternal life. Not necessarily to be used as a verb.

---

It's a both/and. Jesus is "the Way". And "the Way" we have faith in Him is by following Him. Noun in one sense, verb in the other.

When Paul says he worships the God of Abraham by being a follower of "the Way", and then says Felix is well acquainted with "the Way" in Acts 24, he is talking about the practice of the Christian faith, not substituting for Jesus's name.

CWeezy17 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

So then, is it like a pathway to salvation, starting with baptism, and as you perform mortal sin you have to get back on the path via the ways I shared? And, if you don't get back on the path, then you end up in purgatory for a time?

Can you have assurance of salvation until you perform a mortal sin and then regain that assurance once you've done the things I shared (confession, absolution, works)?

---

There is a reason the early Christians were called "the Way". "Faith" has always been about following Jesus, not just "believing" in Him.

Mortal sin isn't just doing a bad sin, but doing it willingly and with full knowledge. It's choosing to walk away from the Way. So if you've stepped off the path, then yes, you need to get back on it. The things you mentioned are just describing the process of getting back on the path. A path that you can only get back onto by the grace and mercy of God the HE gives in the sacrament of confession. Not something complicated process we do by ourselves as a way of getting right with Him

---

I could be naive here, but I believe "the Way" is more in reference to Jesus is the only way, and only through faith in him can you receive eternal life. Not necessarily to be used as a verb.

---

Actually the early church called themselves "The Way" because it was a whole different way of life. Love God, love your neighbor, and follow Jesus. It is a whole new way of life.
Salvation is so much more than a "Get out of hell free" card.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you believe the book of 2 Timothy is scripture?

---

---

It's a fair question that he never answered on the Mary thread. It's not about "who decided the canon" as much as it is "why should we trust those guys".

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

This is how the church got to be the disaster it was in the days of early reformers, Wycliffe and Hus. You have the common people being led by the church and these common people don't know what scripture says at all and they have to basically be slave to whatever the institution tells them to do, like paying indulgences for one. There were no checks and balances in place either in the church institution. The 1400s were an utter disaster with Popes just bribing and paying off the college of cardinals. At one time you have basically 3 popes existing all at once, with the people unsure of who they are supposed to follow. You have popes with concubines and all sorts of immoral nonsense that cannot even lead a Christian life themselves. The church was not even close to being aligned with scripture at this point. I agree that the Lord will not allow His church to fail, but it was an absolute mess when Luther came onto the scene.

ETA: would be interesting to play out an alternate reality of Pius 3 did not die 26 days into his office, when his aim was to put in place many reforms, just 14 years before Luther.

---

How is this any different with common people having access to 75 different biblical translations and relying on their own personal interpretation as the basis for truth?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

No, none of what you said is true

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Pierow said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.

---

God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

---

"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995

---

Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

---

Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.

Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).

Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?

---

I am not postulating any more or less than you are my friend. But that's beside the point. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post above, but I generally agree with what you've written. I didn't go through every single point with a critical eye, but I read through it and found myself saying "yep, mmm hmm, indeed…".

But one place where I am sure we do disagree has to do with the premise in your reasoning that in order for something to be valid doctrine it must be found in scripture. Scripture itself never says that. So that's just a manmade tradition. But if that was the case we'd probably all still have to be ritually circumcised and we'd probably be Arians and still debating whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Mother of God … oh wait.

One thing Sacred Scripture does make very clear. The EKKLSIA is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth. Not one among many pillars. THE pillar.

Do some digging into ekklsia and what it meant to the Greeks who gave us that term and we can see it is much more than just a "church" in the modern sense that it has come to be understood as today.

Let's just dig into 1 and 2 Timothy. Both are fundamentally concerned with church governance and structure, and ekklsia language is woven throughout to ground that concern theologically.

1 Timothy is saturated with instructions about church order: qualifications for bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (3:113), protocols for widows (5:316), instructions on elders (presbyteroi) and their discipline (5:1725), rules for servants and masters (6:12). Paul is establishing a structured, hierarchical body with defined roles and accountability.

2 Timothy continues with this theme. Timothy himself is called to guard sound doctrine, appoint faithful men to teach others (2:2), and correct false teachers with apostolic authority (2:2426; 4:25). Again, governance and transmission of authority through a structured succession.

When Paul calls the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," he's not doing so in abstraction. He's just spent three chapters laying out how this body maintains truth through ordered leadership, sound doctrine, proper discipline, and succession. The ekklsia is corporate and structured because it must safeguard and transmit truth reliably across generations.

This is precisely what apostolic succession and hierarchical Church structure accomplish. The ekklsia as ekklsia, as an assembled, ordered and governed body, is the mechanism by which truth remains "pillar and foundation."

The visible, hierarchical Church with apostolic authority isn't a corruption of spiritual truth. It's the very form Christ gave His body to preserve that truth as he said himself in Matthew 16, and 18 and as clearly stated 1 Timothy 3:15, among other passages in Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is absolutely the inspired word of God and useful for teaching and correction, among other things, but we would not know what scripture is or what it consists of without the ekklesia telling us what belongs in it and what doesn't.

---

There is much we agree on. Obviously.

However, you said there's nowhere in scripture that says scripture only. But there is this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB1995

Why would we want to go outside scripture? We are equipped for every good work by using it. It's adequate. No need for anything else.

If I asked you to build a house for me, and I gave you the specific plans of how I wanted it built, but you added some things here, a window over there, a shower in the kitchen, that would not be a good thing.

---

Which blueprints do you use? The sportsman's Bible? The NASB? KJV? NKJV? The one with the doxology or the one without? The one containing the Septuagint? The one with the books removed? The Luther version without James and Revelation?

CWeezy17 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

---

Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.

Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.

Faithful Ag said:

---

CWeezy17 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

---

Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.

Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.

---

So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?

dermdoc said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

CWeezy17 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

---

Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.

Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.

---

So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?

---

At death is your particular judgement.

Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.

Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you believe the book of 2 Timothy is scripture?

---

---

It's a fair question that he never answered on the Mary thread. It's not about "who decided the canon" as much as it is "why should we trust those guys".

---

I didn't answer because it's a silly question. We trust God. You don't think God got his own word out as he wanted? That his message was incorrectly deciphered by the men he assigned to write it down? If you don't have faith in that, you don't have faith in anything.

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you believe the book of 2 Timothy is scripture?

---

---

It's a fair question that he never answered on the Mary thread. It's not about "who decided the canon" as much as it is "why should we trust those guys".

---

I didn't answer because it's a silly question. We trust God. You don't think God got his own word out as he wanted? That his message was incorrectly deciphered by the men he assigned to write it down? If you don't have faith in that, you don't have faith in anything.

---

So we can trust God that He made sure these guys picked the right books, but we can't trust that He helped the same guys interpret those books correctly at the same time? Seems like your trust in God is actually more limited than mine.

ETA: why can't we trust God protected other apostolic tradition correctly? Is that not also limiting our trust in Him? And the NT canon is definitely an apostolic tradition, as God never lists it out Himself.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

CWeezy17 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

---

Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.

Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.

---

So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?

---

At death is your particular judgement.

Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.

Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day

---

Thanks. I believe in an intermediate state before final judgement. Like NT Wright.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

CWeezy17 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?

Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?

---

Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.

This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.


ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.

---

To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.

---

Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.

Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.

---

So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?

---

At death is your particular judgement.

Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.

Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day

---

Thanks. I believe in an intermediate state before final judgement. Like NT Wright.

---

Catholics believe in an intermediate state as well, but not a separate place. Being in Heaven after your particular judgement but WITHOUT your resurrected body is the intermediate state. That's how saints worshipping God in Heaven in the book of Revelation makes sense.