musterion
Well-known member
Close enough. It shows that Clete's reasoning is deficient, as I have been saying.
Are you Going to Heaven?
- Thread starter ABMF
- Start date
Close enough. It shows that Clete's reasoning is deficient, as I have been saying.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
I actually deleted that post. I did not want to accidental open another can of worms
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Well, I agree with you there. LOL
musterion
Well-known member
Too late. What I posted are Bible facts.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
musterion
Well-known member
What I posted are facts that can be cited verbatim from our apostle.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
And I am sure I can post verbatim from Jesus and the Apostles too that say otherwise. Are we going to have a urination contest? It was better when we both agreed that Cletus was wrong. LOL
musterion
Well-known member
Jesus said He wasn't talking to or about us. He sent Paul to do that.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Not going down that road my friend. I'll leave you to it.
musterion
Well-known member
That indicates you know what He said but you don't care. That means you don't actually believe Him. That's on you.
Bye.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
You know that is a false statement. I am trying to be friendly and you are trying to bait me into a fight. I am sorry my friend but I will not be baited. God bless you. Exiting thread.
Right Divider
Body part
Of course you do. He proves you wrong time and time again. If I were as wrong as you, I'd avoid JR too.
By "move on" you mean run away while complaining the whole way.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
LOL! That is hardly the reason. I prove YOU wrong EVERY time, and him to. You are both scriptural illiterates with ZERO knowledge of Ecclesiology.
It shows no such thing. She's denied accepting the list but that wasn't good enough for you because you wanted to get to any point at all in the discussion that would allow you to type the above quoted sentence and what she said wasn't even actually good enough for that!
I've asked you over and over again how you would reword that list but you refuse to do it.
Can you not understand that such a list is always going to be lacking in detail? The whole point of such a list is precisely about finding the least amount of doctrinal detail needed for the gospel itself to be intact. The idea is to state those doctrine which must be affirmatively believed and I submit that they must be believed AS STATED, which is why I used as much biblical terminology and wording as it made sense to use.
What JR admitted to you was that she is counting on the gospel according to Augustine to save her soul. I'd have to dig deaper to know for certain but based solely on what she said to you, she is likely as lost as any blaspheming Calvinist who believes God sets people's houses on fire so as to rush in and rescue them from the flames and call himself their savior. Why? Because she has done precisely what you are all up in arms about. She has added to the gospel in a manner that undermines it entirely (or so it would seem). If anything, your exchange with her has demonstrated the accuracy of my list of gospel doctrines.
I want reiterate what I've said before. My list does not say a word about any requirement of good works for salvation!
Further, I cannot see any way for someone who believes that works are required for salvation to accept that list of doctrines as being complete. It is only those who accept the idea that salvation is by faith alone apart from works who could read that list and agree with it without qualification. The question then becomes about those who do agree with it but do have qualifications or caveats, just as TG did. What are those qualifications and caveats and do they compromise the gospel and, if so, is the compromise sufficient to disqualify them as being a saved believer? In a great many cases, that is a judgment that will have to be left up to THE Judge on Judgment Day. In other cases, the compromise will be of sufficient severity that most anyone could make such an assessment. The point is, however, that having a base line is the first step in anyone's ability to make such a decision and when you're on a website where there's hardly any two people who agree on everything, it's a worthwhile exercise to make an attempt to find that base line which is all my list is intended to be.
Lastly, as I have already said many times, I am totally open to modifying that list of doctrines if given sufficient reason to do so. In order to make the changes you seem to want, what I am going to need from you is proof that people who believes that good works are required for salvation are, in fact, unsaved and not simply undermining their own spiritual well being and robbing themselves of rewards that they might otherwise have been given in heaven had their good works been properly motivated by love rather than by some list of rules. I implore you, once again, to make the argument. I would need proof that anyone who believes that works are required CANNOT be saved. I'll tell you in advance, that such cannot be proven with one liners and proof-texting. You will have to actually spend the time it takes to establish your position with substantive arguments. Anything else will only serve to convince me that my list is accurate in its current form.
Clete
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
You talk too much and say too little so let me help. Here's the point:
She said she accepts the list as is as long as she gets to interpret at least one of your points according to her dogma, which I knew she would do.
That means she and any other Catholic, or any works slave, could agree 100% with your list as written with no expansion, quibble, or qualification made to you, and by your own words you couldn't dispute it. It's exactly why mush-minded evangelicals are in bed with Rome and SLC.
So congrats...your list as is requires you to accept anyone who signs off on it as saved, no questions asked.
I warned you this would happen but you wouldn't listen. You prefer to argue and pontificate but the point is now made. Your list makes you an ecumenist.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
@Clete
Because I wouldn't reword it. I would scrap it. Don't use creedal lists. Use the whole counsel of Christ on the matter, given us via Paul.
All that convicted sinners needs to know is that Christ died for their sins and rose for their justification, and believing this they will be saved through their faith, without even one work on their part to help them receive the gift of being made right with God.
That's it.
All of that is straight from Paul on the matter. It's all that anyone needs to know to be saved and soundly rooted in Christ from the start. It is also sufficient to avoid sloppily preaching another gospel because we're enamored with our own cloud of words, AND it should preserve them from being ensnared by legalists, as the Galatians were.
Because I wouldn't reword it. I would scrap it. Don't use creedal lists. Use the whole counsel of Christ on the matter, given us via Paul.
All that convicted sinners needs to know is that Christ died for their sins and rose for their justification, and believing this they will be saved through their faith, without even one work on their part to help them receive the gift of being made right with God.
That's it.
All of that is straight from Paul on the matter. It's all that anyone needs to know to be saved and soundly rooted in Christ from the start. It is also sufficient to avoid sloppily preaching another gospel because we're enamored with our own cloud of words, AND it should preserve them from being ensnared by legalists, as the Galatians were.
Right Divider
Body part
You've proven nothing. You cannot even hold a discussion of the Bible text. You always run to your bogus RCC propaganda.
Transalation:
"I stopped reading your post as soon as I read a single sentence that I felt like I had the time to respond too."
Her posts are all still here for everyone to read and so are mine.
If you had bothered to actually read my post, you'd have known that I explicitly said that the statement in my list should be accepted as stated...
"The idea is to state those doctrine which must be affirmatively believed and I submit that they must be believed AS STATED, which is why I used as much biblical terminology and wording as it made sense to use." - no emphasis was added to this quotation.
"It is only those who accept the idea that salvation is by faith alone apart from works who could read that list and agree with it without qualification."
Now you're simply contradicting yourself. A moment ago you said that interpretation according to one's dogma was needed, now its that they "agree 100% with your list as written with no expansion, quibble, or qualification made...".
You clearly have some sort of axe to grind that is clouding your ability to have a rational discussion.
Saying it doesn't make it so, musterion.
Last edited:
That's a load of nonsense. It's not a "creedal list" in the first place, if there even is such a thing. The bible teaches doctrines related to all sorts of different topics including salvation. Making a list of those doctrines cannot be construed as being some sort of substitute for the bible itself. Besides, had my list included some overt prohibition of any belief in a requirement of good works for salvation, you'd have endorsed it yourself.
So now your okay with a list of doctrines? Literally one sentence ago you were telling me not use "creedal lists". Is it alright to use such lists so long as they are one item long?
More importantly than your inability to detect when you're contradicting yourself is that your declaration of "that's it" isn't correct. It isn't it. It isn't even close to being "it" because your single item creedal list has a whole list of other things that are implied but not stated explicitly.
Which "Christ" is it that you're referring to? There's a good number of Mormons (and a whole list of other cultists) who would agree with your creedal list but believe in a "Christ" that has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical Christ who is not only Jesus of Nazareth but Who is the Creator God Himself, Who not only humbled Himself and became a man but lived a human life with all the temptations that come with it, yet without sin and Who willing chose to endure suffering at the hands of His own creation and to lay down His life on their behalf and who then rose from the grave by His own power.
And that's just the beginning of what your creedal list includes! Indeed, I strongly suspect that if one were to think it through and list all the things your creedal list implies, it would include a total of six major points and would likely read something like this....
- God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
- We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
- Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
- Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
- Jesus rose from the dead.
- If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, without even one work on your part to help you receive the gift of being made right with God. YOU WILL BE SAVED
Yeah, right! As though the Galatians weren't taught the gospel directly from the mouth of Paul himself. According tom you own creedal list, the Galatians weren't even saved! Paul completely failed and all the Galatians that had allowed their doctrine to be corrupted by legalism had believed a false gospel and were still in their sins!
I'll state again that the list of doctrines which I have offered is completely consistent with Paul's gospel and makes no mention whatsoever of any requirement of works for salvation. If anyone makes such an addition YOU say that they are disqualified, not merely for rewards in heaven, which would be consistent with what Paul teaches, but that they are not even saved at all. A position that you cannot support, or at the very least, refuse to support with actual arguments.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
Romans 10:9-10 is not a magic mantra that will get someone saved today.
Jehovah's Witnesses "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", do they not?
Romans 9-11 is a lesson about Israel. Verse 9 of chapter 10 is referring to Joel.
It's about what Israel needed to do during the time of Jacob's trouble.
Paul is certainly using it differently, but not completely so.