# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Pope: You don't have to believe in God to get to heaven

## green73

> In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.
> 
> Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who dont believe and who dont seek the faith. I start by saying  and this is the fundamental thing  that Gods mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.
> 
> Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.


cont
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-8810062.html

----------


## cajuncocoa

in b4 Sola_Fide

----------


## eduardo89

Nowhere in that letter did he say those who reject Christ will enter Heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Eduardo89, I know you'll likely say the Pope doesn't speak for the church here, but if that's the case, you should be willing to state that Pope Francis himself is currently on the path to Hell.

"Everyone" includes gnostics, which would fall directly under the condemnation of 2 John 11.  Speaking peace to any other non-Christian in this manner would fall under the preaching a false gospel of Galatians 1:8

Is Pope Francis currently on the path to damnation?  If you don't say "Yes" you are defending his heretical doctrine.

----------


## willwash

Can I +rep the Pope?

----------


## willwash

> Nowhere in that letter did he say those who reject Christ will enter Heaven.


True but that appears to be the obvious inference/implication.  Why else would he say this?

I suppose it's possible he is saying they will be given a chance to accept Christ in purgatory and then enter heaven even if they never accepted him in their earth life.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> in b4 Sola_Fide


I did it first.  I decided to ask Eduardo89 specifically because I know he actually does stand up for the idea that Christ is the only way to be saved.  I'm not sure if you do or not (Not because I doubt anything you've said about it, but because I honestly don't know your answer).  If your answer is "Yes" than I'm asking you too.

I don't really think there's much you can say that would be "Over the top" with regards to this.  Pope Francis is, quite frankly, blaspheming God and preaching a false gospel.  He is not currently saved.  Period.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nowhere in that letter did he say those who reject Christ will enter Heaven.


I posted before you, but you're probably defining "Reject" differently than the Bible does.  The Bible doesn't say that those who haven't heard, much less those who have heard but lack "Sufficient knowledge" and do not accept Christ are nonetheless not rejecting him.  The RCC seems to think this may be the case.  Pope Francis just literally said that atheists that follow their conscience go to heaven.  That's damnable BS.

----------


## otherone

> I don't really think there's much you can say that would be "Over the top" with regards to this.  Pope Francis is, quite frankly, blaspheming God and preaching a false gospel.  He is not currently saved.  Period.


What do you care?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Look at how appealing the devil makes "Christianity" seem.  You can be your own little god and just obey your conscience, and be saved.  You can be righteous before a holy God without Jesus.

----------


## eduardo89

> True but that appears to be the obvious inference/implication.  Why else would he say this?
> 
> I suppose it's possible he is saying they will be given a chance to accept Christ in purgatory and then enter heaven even if they never accepted him in their earth life.


Purgatory isn't some sort of "second chance." All those in purgatory are saved, but they must suffer the effects of their venial sins and have their souls purified before entering heaven. There is no so such thing as someone who enters purgatory and then goes to hell.

----------


## eduardo89

> I posted before you, but you're probably defining "Reject" differently than the Bible does.  The Bible doesn't say that those who haven't heard, much less those who have heard but lack "Sufficient knowledge" and do not accept Christ are nonetheless not rejecting him.  The RCC seems to think this may be the case.  Pope Francis just literally said that atheists that follow their conscience go to heaven.  That's damnable BS.


Read the letter. He does not say that atheists who follow their conscience while rejecting Christ will go to Heaven.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nowhere in that letter did he say those who reject Christ will enter Heaven.


Are you blind?  Yes he most certainly did:




> Francis wrote: “*You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.*


And he also added this little nugget that I'm sure that the perverted world will love:




> “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”



If anyone thinks that anything Rome says is Christian, they are blind.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you care?


I think its hillarious how Catholics will spin themselves into hoops to defend their pope.  And I think its sad that people would believe someone who is so  obviously spouting out demonic doctrines (Lest you think I only say it to Catholics, I told a relative of mine the exact same thing when she excused her watering down of the true gospel because of Arminian free will heresy.)



> Look at how appealing the devil makes "Christianity" seem.  You can be your own little god and just obey your conscience, and be saved.  You can be righteous before a holy God without Jesus.


Virtual high five.  

I don't even think you went overboard on this one.  This was dead-on.




> Purgatory isn't some sort of "second chance." All those in purgatory are saved, but they must suffer the effects of their venial sins and have their souls purified before entering heaven. There is no so such thing as someone who enters purgatory and then goes to hell.


How blasphemous is this?  Christ's death  isn't enough?

You  blaspheme God.

Sola, do you happen to know if CS Lewis ever rejected the purgatory heresy later in his life?



> Read the letter. He does not say that atheists who follow their conscience while rejecting Christ will go to Heaven.


Is the whole thing not quoted in the OP?

----------


## willwash

> Read the letter. He does not say that atheists who follow their conscience while rejecting Christ will go to Heaven.


He very clearly said that God's mercy has no limits in a context in which he was unambiguously referring to those who have not accepted Christ, so long as they live their lives with sincerity and contrition in their hearts.

Did he directly say all atheists are going to heaven?  No.  Did he say some atheists but not others will go to heaven?  Not necessarily.  I don't think it is possible to be atheist and have contrition in your heart.  Atheists by their very nature believe they have the answer for sure.

What I think the Pope might have meant was that an agnostic whose God given intelligence and reason will not permit him to believe certain things that seem to violate the natural physical laws according to which God appears to have constructed the universe (such as miracles, creation ex nihilio, etc) based on scripture alone, but who nevertheless adheres to the moral teachings of Jesus and practices universal love, compassion, charity and kindness, as well as keeping an open mind, may yet see salvation.

Just my .02

----------


## Christian Liberty

“If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”



Some Christians do go overboard on this point, ESPECIALLY when they simultaneously support the military.  

If you want to say that there's no such thing as a Christian who struggles with this sin, you should be willing to say there isn't a single Christian in the imperial military either.

That some "Christians" would spend all their time bashing homosexuality while glorifying murder is far more nauseating to me than this particular comment of Pope Francis'.

I'd also have to know what he means by "Gay" for sure.  Does he mean people with homosexual inclinations (temptations)?  Or does he mean men who actually make a practice of sleeping with other men?  And what does he mean by "judge"?  Does he mean judging their spiritual status, or does he mean judging the actions themselves?

I mean, I guess it doesn't matter for Pope Francis, the OP damns him enough anyway, but I still want to know exactly what he means before I go  off too hard on this one either.

Disclaimer: I fully accept that homosexual acts are an abomination before God.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I did it first.  I decided to ask Eduardo89 specifically because *I know he actually does stand up for the idea that Christ is the only way to be saved.  I'm not sure if you do or not* (Not because I doubt anything you've said about it, but because I honestly don't know your answer).  If your answer is "Yes" than I'm asking you too.
> 
> I don't really think there's much you can say that would be "Over the top" with regards to this.  Pope Francis is, quite frankly, blaspheming God and preaching a false gospel.  He is not currently saved.  Period.


Yes, I do.  I have no idea what the Pope is getting at here by this comment, but I don't come here so much to discuss religion as I do to discuss politics. I'm not going to be sticking around in this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He very clearly said that God's mercy has no limits in a context in which he was unambiguously referring to those who have not accepted Christ, so long as they live their lives with sincerity and contrition in their hearts.
> 
> Did he directly say all atheists are going to heaven?  No.  Did he say some atheists but not others will go to heaven?  Not necessarily.  I don't think it is possible to be atheist and have contrition in your heart.  Atheists by their very nature believe they have the answer for sure.
> 
> What I think the Pope might have meant was that an agnostic whose God given intelligence and reason will not permit him to believe certain things that seem to violate the natural physical laws according to which God appears to have constructed the universe (such as miracles, creation ex nihilio, etc) based on scripture alone, but who nevertheless adheres to the moral teachings of Jesus and practices universal love, compassion, charity and kindness, as well as keeping an open mind, may yet see salvation.
> 
> Just my .02


That tells you that Pope Francis himself is on the highway to eternal damnation.  That's all it tells you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, I do.  I have no idea what the Pope is getting at here by this comment, but I don't come here so much to discuss religion as I do to discuss politics. I'm not going to be sticking around in this thread.


I came here to discuss politics, but I've been on a theology kick lately

But I see no reason why I can't do both

I know you profess to be Catholic, but I don't honestly know what your doctrine is or what exactly you believe, so I'm not necessarily lumping you in with  the Pope here.

----------


## eduardo89

> How blasphemous is this?  Christ's death  isn't enough?
> 
> You  blaspheme God.


Re-read what I said. All those in purgatory have ALREADY been saved by Christ's death. Read this: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.c..._purgatory.pdf




> Sola, do you happen to know if CS Lewis ever rejected the purgatory heresy later in his life?


"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?

I believe in Purgatory." - CS Lewis




> Is the whole thing not quoted in the OP?


No. The OP is taking the title and snippet from a liberal newspaper.

----------


## shane77m

What if a nonbelievers conscience tells them that it is okay to kill, still, rape, and etc?

----------


## eduardo89

“If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”

@Sola, are you saying that someone who has homosexual temptations, but through prayer and devotion to God refuses to give into them and leads a celibate and chaste life, they are damned to hell?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I came here to discuss politics, but I've been on a theology kick lately
> 
> *But I see no reason why I can't do both*
> 
> I know you profess to be Catholic, but I don't honestly know what your doctrine is or what exactly you believe, so I'm not necessarily lumping you in with  the Pope here.


*You* can do both!  I prefer not to discuss religion with others (mostly).  Personal preference.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, do you happen to know if CS Lewis ever rejected the purgatory heresy later in his life?


*Did CS Lewis go To Heaven?*
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Re-read what I said. All those in purgatory have ALREADY been saved by Christ's death. Read this: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.c..._purgatory.pdf


Christ's blood alone completely justifies the sinner so that he can enter heaven.  Purgatory per


> verts this concept.
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?
> 
> I believe in Purgatory." - CS Lewis


Yeah, I knew he  said that.  I was asking if he ever said otherwise later in his life.  If not, I seriously question whether he knew the Lord either.




> “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”
> 
> @Sola, are you saying that someone who has homosexual temptations, but through prayer and devotion to God refuses to give into them and leads a celibate and chaste life, they are damned to hell?


I wouldn't say that (Assuming they believed the gospel and were regenerate by grace through faith, otherwise they'd be damned no matter what they do) and I assume Sola wouldn't either (Although for him, "Believing the gospel" would require a belief in limited atonement, which I disagree with.)

----------


## green73

> The OP is taking the title and snippet from a liberal newspaper.






That is Drudges headline!

----------


## cajuncocoa

FF and Sola, do either of you have an opinion on the Bible verse that says "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged"?  The two of you are always professing that this or that person is doomed to hell, which (in my opinion) seems counter to what that Bible verse instructs us to not do.

----------


## erowe1

I'd like to know more about the letter, and not just from the perspective of a journalist, before I claim to know what the Pope either actually said or meant by what he said.

One "out" that the words in the OP give him is that he could still say (and honestly, I don't see how he or anyone could avoid saying this), that all people sin, even when judged by the standard of their own conscience, and thus still need salvation. When he talks about following a sincere conscience, he probably believes that that path would lead someone out of atheism and into truth. Notice he says God forgives people if they go "to Him" with a sincere heart. The "to Him" may be very important to his meaning.

----------


## torchbearer

Is God's grace so limited?

----------


## erowe1

> Is God's grace so limited?


Guy: "God, I don't want to be your friend."
God: "OK. You won't be my friend."
Guy: "Whaaaaaaaa."

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Guy: "God, I don't want to be your friend."
> God: "OK. You won't be my friend."
> Guy: "Whaaaaaaaa."


That's was pretty limited in scope

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *Did CS Lewis go To Heaven?*
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103


*
Note: I asked you a few times if you believe that people who believe such and such are necessarily believers in damnable heresies.  Just to be clear, I'm not asking you if you AGREE with the views in question.  I'm well aware that you don't agree with any of them.  I'm asking if you believe that every person who holds the view in question is unregenerate.*

OK, I just read that article.  I didn't agree with everything in it,  but I agree with enough of it that I feel comfortable sending it to my dad (Who is currently confident CS Lewis is saved.)  I tend to agree with  Robbins' conclusions here.

I don't really agree with the Westminster confession that you have to believe every word of the Bible in order to be saved.  Mind you, I'd completely agree that its evil to preach that it isn't, but, I don't think someone who questions the inerrancy of a number in Numbers, for example, is necessarily unregenerate.  I understand why Robbins seems to hold that position,but honestly, he quotes the Westminster confession which, whatever its merits, isn't the Bible. And I don't see any Biblical text where it says every believer will accept the inerrency of the Bible.  2 Timothy 3:16 clearly teaches such inerrency, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone who rejects it is unregenerate.   And how far does this go?  Would you (or Robbins) say based on this that a Christian who believes that Genesis 1 and 2 are inerrant, but that days are symbolic of ages rather than being literal days, is unregenerate?  Or would we only apply this to people who knowingly state that certain scriptures are not infallible.

I do, however, have to agree with Robbins that a rejection of faith alone is damnable.  That's the most telling part to me.  I know we've discussed the atonement, and its odd because Robbins seems to agree with you but he was actually anathemized by OTC for disagreeing with them (And you), so I know he doesn't actually hold that everyone who rejects limited atonement is unregenerate (Even though he seems to in that article.)  I don't necessarily agree that every rejection of penal substitution is damnable, but it would depend on exactly what theory was held instead (To be clear, I hold to penal substitution, but I find it illogical that unlimited atonement advocates claim to do so.)  People like Rob Bell who deny ANY form of sacrifice for sins are clearly unsaved.  I don't think believing the ransom theory, as Justin Martyr did, is necessarily damnable in and of itself, although I'd agree that its an immature theology that rightfully isn't really accepted in churches today.  In other places, Robbins seems to agree with me, he did say that he believes Martyr was a Christian.  He said he probably wouldn't have made him a member of his church, with his doctrine of the atonement, but he didn't seem to doubt his salvation.  So once again, I think Robbins is contradicting what he's said in other places.

That said, its the doctrine of faith alone that does it for me.  I admit I'm not sure exactly how far I'd go with  the "Those who deny faith alone are unregenerate" so I guess to some extent I have to leave that to God.  Is someone who gets tripped up on Acts 2:38 and believes in baptismal regeneration for that reason definitely damned?  Mind you, its a heresy, but is every person who holds to it unregenerate?  I'm not 100% sure.  I know I very briefly flirted with this heresy at one time, although I never fully embraced it, by the grace of God I rejected it.  But I don't believe I was unsaved at the time.  Perhaps the fact that I was genuinely saved ensured that I would reject it.  I don't know.

Regarding CS Lewis' inclusivism, I tend to think that's damnable as well, although I guess I want to know, how far does that go?  John Macarthur (A 5-point Calvinist) teaches that infants who die too young to comprehend the gospel are saved.  Forget the question of whether he is correct or not, is the fact that he teaches that a damnable heresy?  Is teaching that someone who never hears the gospel might be saved a damnable heresy?  (I have to confess I used to believe this one as well, although I have basically considered it nonsensical since I embraced Calvinism.  I'm still not sure about the infants question.)

Ultimately, from that article, it seems like there's enough heresy there to conclude that CS Lewis probably wasn't saved.  Which honestly makes me really, really sad.  I know my dad believes he is, so I'll have to show him this article and ask him what he thinks.
*
I know this was a long post, if you can get through it and answer my questions, I'd appreciate it.  I want to know what God's Word says about this.*

----------


## fr33

The pope is being nice to me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF and Sola, do either of you have an opinion on the Bible verse that says "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged"?  The two of you are always professing that this or that person is doomed to hell, which (in my opinion) seems counter to what that Bible verse instructs us to not do.


I only say that about people who fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8  If you can show me anyone who I have said such about that does not fall under Galatians 1:8 (Its a possibility I could make an error) and show me why they didn't, I'll retract my statement.

I'm not actually saying they are definitively damned to hell, but that they aren't currently saved when they made that statement.  I have no idea if anyone is of the elect or not.  Its possible that I may have made the error of saying someone was going to Hell when I really meant they were unregenerate, but that's not what I meant.  I know nobody's eternal destiny.

I think the point of that verse is not to judge someone without cause.  If you judge someone to be unsaved because of their lifestyle, that would be presumptuous, and its a reminder  that we have our own sins as well.   The Bible does say we'll know the true Christians by their fruit, and that in some cases a believer who acts like an unbeliever should be excommunicated from the church (And believers shouldn't eat with them) but ultimately, their salvation is still up to God, not us.  We don't know for sure.

On the other hand, if a person is preaching a false gospel, that's clear evidence that they are unsaved.  Although its important to be sure that what they said is actually what they meant, rather than taken out of context or a slip of the tongue.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

How about

Guy: I don't know if there is a god.
God: (silently watches)
Guy: Minds his own business, doesn't force others to his will
God: (silently watches)
Guy: helps the widow, defends the weak
God: (silently watches with a slight grin)
Guy: helps his neighbors with various problems, and his neighbors help him
God: (silently watches with a smile)
Guy: Gets old and dies
God: Hmmm, he seemed to be a good friend to those around him, I think he'd be a good friend toward me also.

----------


## Danan

> True but that appears to be the obvious inference/implication.  Why else would he say this?
> 
> I suppose it's possible he is saying they will be given a chance to accept Christ in purgatory and then enter heaven even if they never accepted him in their earth life.


Hasn't the last Pope (or the one before) gotten rid of purgatory?

Edit: Nevermind, that was limbo.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is God's grace so limited?


It is the advocates of universal atonement that limit God's grace.  They believe in grace that fails to save the majority of people it is intended for.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How about
> 
> Guy: I don't know if there is a god.
> God: (silently watches)
> Guy: Minds his own business, doesn't force others to his will
> God: (silently watches)
> Guy: helps the widow, defends the weak
> God: (silently watches with a slight grin)
> Guy: helps his neighbors with various problems, and his neighbors help him
> ...


That's great, but its not Biblical.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *I only say that about people who fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8  If you can show me anyone who I have said such about that does not fall under Galatians 1:8 (Its a possibility I could make an error) and show me why they didn't, I'll retract my statement.*
> 
> I'm not actually saying they are definitively damned to hell, but that they aren't currently saved when they made that statement.  I have no idea if anyone is of the elect or not.  Its possible that I may have made the error of saying someone was going to Hell when I really meant they were unregenerate, but that's not what I meant.  I know nobody's eternal destiny.
> 
> I think the point of that verse is not to judge someone without cause.  If you judge someone to be unsaved because of their lifestyle, that would be presumptuous, and its a reminder  that we have our own sins as well.   The Bible does say we'll know the true Christians by their fruit, and that in some cases a believer who acts like an unbeliever should be excommunicated from the church (And believers shouldn't eat with them) but ultimately, their salvation is still up to God, not us.  We don't know for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, if a person is preaching a false gospel, that's clear evidence that they are unsaved.  Although its important to be sure that what they said is actually what they meant, rather than taken out of context or a slip of the tongue.


But shouldn't that judgment be left to God?  The passage (directive to us, if you will) "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" seems pretty clear and doesn't go on to say "except for those who fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8"

----------


## green73

> The pope is being nice to me.


The Pope is nice. I like nice things.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How about
> 
> Guy: I don't know if there is a god.
> God: (silently watches)
> Guy: Minds his own business, doesn't force others to his will
> God: (silently watches)
> Guy: helps the widow, defends the weak
> God: (silently watches with a slight grin)
> Guy: helps his neighbors with various problems, and his neighbors help him
> ...


What is completely missing from this picture?  The man's sin.  The man is guilty of sin before God, and you Clyde are guilty before God.

----------


## torchbearer

> Guy: "God, I don't want to be your friend."
> God: "OK. You won't be my friend."
> Guy: "Whaaaaaaaa."


I don't follow your doctrine.
YOu bitch and whine about it.
I live by NAP and die doing no harm.
Grace received.
You whine for being a stupid sucker.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is the advocates of universal atonement that limit God's grace.  They believe in grace that fails to save the majority of people it is intended for.


What I think you fail to understand is that most of them don't do so with any form of consistency.  They don't deliberately limit God's grace, they just don't really know any better.  They've been under pathetic teaching.  

I think  it would be hard to find an Arminian who, if pressed, would actually claim that God's grace is ineffective.  They'd probably ultimately have to admit that God's grace is only applied to the elect, although they'd probably qualify "elect" as being by foreknowledge rather than predestination.

Which, is completely unbiblical.   I'm not defending Arminianism here.  Its heretical.  I'm just saying that those people aren't sitting there saying that they believe God's grace is limited.  That's a caricature, not what Arminianism actually is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But shouldn't that judgment be left to God?  The passage (directive to us, if you will) "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" seems pretty clear and doesn't go on to say "except for those who fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8"


Paul says let them be eternally condemned.  Not to mention Jesus saying he is the way, the truth, and the life.

I don't believe God's point is to not judge those who believe in a false gospel.






> What is completely missing from this picture?  The man's sin.  The man is guilty of sin before God, and you Clyde are guilty before God.


*Virtual high five*

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What is completely missing from this picture?  The man's sin.  The man is guilty of sin before God, and you Clyde are guilty before God.


"Cause the bible tells me so......"


_Sick_

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Cause the bible tells me so......"


That's good enough for me, and you'll wish it was for you when you die.

----------


## Danan

> That's good enough for me, and you'll wish it was for you when you die.


I'll take a gamble. If I'm right, nothing happens. If the Pope is right, I'm in heaven. If you're right... well who cares.

----------


## eduardo89

> Hasn't the last Pope (or the one before) gotten rid of purgatory?


No. No Pope can change Church doctrine.




> Edit: Nevermind, that was limbo.


Limbo has never been Church doctrine, it is merely a theological theory.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Paul says let them be eternally condemned.  Not to mention Jesus saying he is the way, the truth, and the life.
> 
> I don't believe God's point is to not judge those who believe in a false gospel.


That didn't really answer my question.  Of course God will judge all of us.  I am asking the two of you why YOU are judging these people.

----------


## eduardo89

> That didn't really answer my question.  Of course God will judge all of us.  I am asking the two of you why YOU are judging these people.


Because it is easier to judge others than to look at yourself and admit your own faults.

----------


## otherone

> I think its hillarious how Catholics will spin themselves into hoops to defend their pope.


Again...what do you care?  Does it make you feel better about yourself?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll take a gamble. If I'm right, nothing happens. If the Pope is right, I'm in heaven. If you're right... well who cares.


Then you'll burn in Hell for all of eternity.  That's a far cry from "Who cares."

The Pope being right is an absolute impossibility.  Absolutely impossible.  If he were right, that would make God an evil liar (Catholics claim to believe scripture is infallible, so you can't really use a "Bible says so isn't an argument" to defend the Pope.  The RCC claims to agree with me on that one.)



> That didn't really answer my question.  Of course God will judge all of us.  I am asking the two of you why YOU are judging these people.


Paul certainly judged the false teachers of his day.  Why shouldn't we judge the ones of our day?  I think Jesus' point was not to judge when you don't have enough evidence to judge.  If you believe I've done that, show me where, and if you can show me, I'm willing to repent.  

In Pope Francis' case, he CLEARLY rejects the Biblical gospel of by grace, through faith, and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9.)  Thus, Galatians 1:8 says he's currently on the path to Hell.  That doesn't necessarily mean he will ultimately go there.  He may yet repent and believe the true gospel.  THAT judgment I leave to God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because it is easier to judge others than to look at yourself and admit your own faults.


I have many, many flaws.  I don't deny that.  I've committed plenty of serious sins.  But I don't profess a false gospel.

----------


## PatriotOne

Here's the full text of the letter......

*The Pope's letter to Repubblica:* 


http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/201...tter-66336961/
"An open dialogue with non-believers" 

The Pope's letter to Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" Pope Francis (ap)

Lo leggo dopo

Dear Dott. Scalfari,
I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on last July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that have then continued to enhance the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.

First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was in the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and scrupulous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus from Nazareth".

Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us,  but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a fact that is so superior such as faith and which refers to the preachings and the figure of  Jesus.

In particular, I think there are two circumstances which today cause this dialogue to be precious and necessary.  On the other hand this is one of the principal aims of the Second Vatican Council, desired by John XXIII as well as by the Apostolic Ministry of the Pope who, each with their own sensibility and help have since then continued in the course traced by the Council. 

The first circumstance  -  that refers to the initial pages of the Encyclical  -  derives from the fact that, down in the centuries of modern life, we have seen a paradox:  Christian faith, whose novelty and importance in the life of mankind since the beginning has been expressed through the symbol of light, has often been branded as the darkness of superstition which is opposed to the light of reason.  Therefore a lack of communication has arisen between the Church and the culture inspired by Christianity on one hand and the modern culture of Enlightenment on the other. The time has come and the Second Vatican has inaugurated the season, for an open dialogue without preconceptions that opens the door to a serious and fruitful meeting.

The second circumstance, for those who attempt to be faithful to the gift of following Jesus in the light of faith, derives from the fact that this dialogue is not a secondary accessory in the existence of those who believe, but is rather an intimate and indispensabile expression.  Speaking of which, allow me to quote a very important statement, in my opinion, of the Encyclical:  as the truth witnessed by faith is found in love  -  it is stressed  -  "it seems clear that faith is not unyielding, but increases in the coexistence which respects the other.  The believer is not arrogant; on the contrary, the truth makes him humble, in the knowledge that rather than possessing it ourselves, it embraces us and possesses us.  Rather than make us rigid, the security of faith makes it possible to speak with everyone" (n.34). This is the spirit of the words I am writing to you.

For me, faith began  by meeting with Jesus.  A personal meeting that touched my heart and gave a direction and a new meaning to my existence.  At the same time, however, a meeting that was made possible by the community of faith in which I lived and thanks to which I found access to the intelligence of the Sacred Scriptures, to the new life that comes from Jesus like gushing water through the Sacraments, to fraternity with everyone and to the service to the poor, which is the real image of the Lord. Believe me, without the Church I would never have been able to meet Jesus, in spite of the knowledge that the immense gift of faith is kept in the fragile clay vases of our humanity. 

Now, thanks to this personal experience of  faith experienced in Church, I feel comfortable in listening to your questions and together with you, will try to find a way to perhaps walk along a path together. 

Please forgive me if I do not follow the arguments proposed by you step by step in your editorial of July 7th. It would seem more fruitful to me  -  or more congenial  -  to go right to the heart of your considerations.  I will not even go into the manners of explanation followed by the Encyclical, in which you find the lack of a section specifically dedicated to the historial experience of Jesus of Nazareth.

To start, I will only observe that such an analysis is not secondary.  In fact, following the logic of the Encyclical, this means paying attention to the meaning of what Jesus said and did and after all, of what Jesus has been and is for us.  The Letters of Paul and the Gospel according to John, to which particular reference is made in the Encyclical, are in fact created on the solid foundation of the Messianic Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth which culminated in the pentecost of death and resurrection.

Therefore, I would say that we must face Jesus in the concrete roughness of his story, as above all told to us by the most ancient of the Gospels, the one according to Mark.  We then find that the "scandal" which the word and practices of Jesus provoke around him derive from his extraordinary "authority":  a word that has been certified since the Gospel according to Mark, but that is not easy to traslate well into Italian.  The Greek word is "exousia", which literally means "comes from being" what one is. It is not something exterior or forced, but rather something that emanates from the inside and imposes itself.  Actually Jesus, amazes and innovates starting from, he himself says this, his relationship with God, called familiarly Abbà, who gives him this "authority" so that he uses it in favor of men. 

So Jesus preaches "like someone who has authority", he heals, calls his disciples to follow him, people... things that, in the Old Testament, belong to God and only God.  The question that most frequently is repeated in the Gospel according to Mark:  "Who is he who...?", and which regards the identità of Jesus, arises from the recognition of an authority that differs from that of the world, an authority that cannot be aimed at exercising power over others, but rather serving them, giving them freedom and the fullness of life.  And this is done to the point of staking his same life, up to experimenting misunderstanding, betrayal, refusal, until he is condemned to die, left abandoned on the cross. But Jesus remained faithful to God, up to his death.

And it is then, as the Roman centurium  exclaims at the feet of the cross, in the Gospel according to Mark that Jesus absurdly is seen as the Son of God!  Son of a god that is love and that wants, with all of himself that man, every man, reveals himself and also lives like his real son.  For Christian faith this is certified by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead:  not to be trimphant over who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worthwhile to spend one's life, to the end, to witness this great gift. 

Christian faith believes in this:  that Jesus is the Son of God who came to give his life to open the way to love for everyone.  Therefore there is a reason, dear Dr. Scalari, when you see the incarnation of the Son of God as the pivot of Christian faith.  Tertullian wrote "caro cardo salutis", the flesh (of Christ) is the pivot of salvation. Because the incarnation, that is the fact that the Son of God has come into our flesh and has shared joy and pain, victories and defeat of our existence, up to the cry of the cross, living each event with love and in the faith of Abbà, shows the incredibile love that God has for every man, the priceless value that he acknowledges. For this reason, each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting.  This is faith, with all the expressions that have been dutifully described in the Encyclical. 

* * * 

    In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead move around the absolute transcendency of God.

I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to partecipate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others:  but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.

Of course a consequence of this is also  -  and this is not a minor thing  -  that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by  "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed  by Jesus and upon which, the history  of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the other-worldly and definite destination of our destiny, while civil and political society has the difficult duty to express and embody  a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the outskirts of history and keeping the sense of hope alive pushing for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.

At the end of your first artiche, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them:  Has this been forgotten? And this  -  believe me  -  is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting  from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have questioned God, especially when I remember the terribile experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And the Church as well as humanity, will never be grateful enough to them for this. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved. 

As for the three questions you asked me in  the artiche of August 7th.    It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus.  First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.  Given that  -  and this is fundamental  -  God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.  In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.  The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision. 

Second of all, you ask if the thought,  according to which no absolute exists and therefore not even an absolute truth, but only a series of relative and subjective turths, is a mistake or a sin.  To start, I would not speak about, not even for those who believe, an "absolute" truth, in the sense that absolute is something untied, something lacking any relationship.  Now, the truth is a relationship!  This is so true that each of us sees the truth and expresses it, starting from oneself: from one's history and culture, from the situation in which one lives, etc.  This does not mean that the truth is variable and subjective. It means that it is given to us only as a way and a life.  Was it not Jesus himself who said:  "I am the way, the truth, the life"?  In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the opening to be seeked, listened to and expressed.  Therefore we must understand the terms well and perhaps, in order to  overcome the difficulties of an absolute contrast, reformulate the question.  I think that today this is absolutely necessary in order to have a serene and constructive dialogue which I hoped for from the beginning.

In the last question you ask if, with the disappearance of man on earth, the thoughts able to think about God will also disappear.  Of course, the greatness of mankind lies in being able to think about God.  That is in being able to experience a conscious and responsible relationship with Him.  But the relationship lies between two realities.  God  -  this is my thought and this is my experience, but how many, yesterday and today, share it!  -   is not an idea, even if very sublime, the result of the thoughts of mankind.  God is a reality with a capital "R".  Jesus reveals this to us  -  and he experiences the relationship with Him  -  as a Father of infinite goodness and mercy.  God therefore does not depend on our thoughts. On the other hand, even when the end of life for man on earth should come  -  and for Christian faith, in any case the world as we know it now is destined to end, man will not finish existing and, in a way that we do not know, even the universe created by him. The Scriptures speak of "new skies and a new land" and confirms that, in the end, the where and when which is beyond all of us, but which we, in faith, await with desire, God will be " everything in everyone". Dear Dr. Scalari, I end my reflections here, caused by what you wanted to tell and ask me.  Please accept it as a tentative and temporary reply, but sincere and hopeful, together with the invitation that I made to walk a bit of the way together. Believe me, in spite of its slowness, the unfaithful,

 the mistakes and the sins that the Church might have committed and can still commit among those who compose it, it has no other sense and aim if not to live and witness Jesus:  He has been sent by Abbà "to bring the happy prophecy, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and sight to the blind, giving liberty to the oppressed, to proclaim the year of our Lord" (Lc 4, 18-19).

With brotherly love,
    Francesco

----------


## eduardo89

> I have many, many flaws.  I don't deny that.  I've committed plenty of serious sins.  *But I don't profess a false gospel.*


You preach a misinterpreted version of the true Gospel.

Sola, however, does not preach the Gospel at all because he lacks love for his neighbour.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because it is easier to judge others than to look at yourself and admit your own faults.


I owe you a rep.

----------


## otherone

> You preach a misinterpreted version of the true Gospel.
> 
> Sola, however, does not preach the Gospel at all because he lacks love for his neighbour.



    There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and *one who sows discord among brothers*.
    —Proverbs 6:16–19

Sola in a nutshell.
Sometimes I think Calvinists have a religious version of Napoleon Complex.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You preach a misinterpreted version of the true Gospel.
> 
> Sola, however, does not preach the Gospel at all* because he lacks love for his neighbour*.


I don't think you know this.  I think its very, very likely that I lack love for my neighbor to a greater extent than he does.  You can only get so much from someone's posting style on the internet.

Mind you, I'm not definitively defending Sola here either, I'm just saying you don't know for sure.  If you want to argue that his doctrine that God has no love whatsoever for the reprobate logically leads to not having love for one's neighbor, I could agree with that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he takes his position to its logical conclusion.

While  I obviously believe that I'm right about what I preach (Otherwise I'd preach differently, duh) I do think "Misinterpreted version of the true gospel" is a valid phrase, and there's a distinction to be made between people who misinterpret the gospel but still get the fundamentals, vs those who completely reject the gospel.  I would argue that most inconsistent forms of Arminianism fit in the former category, although I'd have to agree that taken to its logical  conclusion it would probably be in the second category.

----------


## eduardo89

> As for the three questions you asked me in the artiche of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - *God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart,* the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.


You must ask God for mercy, meaning you must accept God and His infinite mercy, in order to be forgiven. So the title of the OP is completely false in saying someone who rejects God can go to Heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and *one who sows discord among brothers*.
>     —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> Sola in a nutshell.
> Sometimes I think Calvinists have a religious version of Napoleon Complex.


I don't think Sola is knowingly doing this.  He's not attacking anyone who he knows to be his brother.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Christian faith believes in this: that Jesus is the Son of God who came to give his life to open the way to love for everyone.


Wrong.  Jesus came to seek and SAVE his sheep.  He will not fail to save one of His sheep.  Jesus didn't come to "open up the way", He came to absolutely save His elect unfailingly.

This is one of the reasons that Rome is not Christian.  It denies the atonement.

----------


## otherone

> Again...what do you care?  *Does it make you feel better about yourself?*






> I have many, many flaws.  I don't deny that.  *I've committed plenty of serious sins.  But I don't profess a false gospel*.


asked and answered....thanks.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> the issue for those who do not believe in God is*in obeying their own conscience.* In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.


The Pope is saying that those who reject God but obey their consciences can work for their salvation.  How long as you going to defend your false religion?

Seriously, you guys keep attacking Sola_Fide but he's dead on in this thread and the rest of you are scrambling.  Stop focusing on him and start looking at the message he is preaching, namely, that your leader is a heretic who is preaching a false gospel of works.

----------


## otherone

> I don't think Sola is knowingly doing this.  He's not attacking anyone who he knows to be his brother.


We are not all brothers?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You must ask God for mercy, meaning you must accept God and His infinite mercy, in order to be forgiven. So the title of the OP is completely false in saying someone who rejects God can go to Heaven.


Wrong.  A  man can only come to God in repentance if he HAS been saved.  Repentance is a gift that God gives His elect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We are not all brothers?


No.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wrong.  Jesus came to seek and SAVE his sheep.  He will not fail to save one of His sheep.  Jesus didn't come to "open up the way", He came to absolutely save His elect unfailingly.
> 
> This is one of the reasons that Rome is not Christian.  It denies the atonement.


Oh boy... if you were right about this that would go well beyond "Rome"

This would mean that, to my understanding, almost all if not all Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Baptists are not saved either.

For me its the rejection of sola fide (The doctrine, not you) that is the dealbreaker, not the atonement issue, although their atonement view is wrong as well.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Pope is saying that those who reject God but obey their consciences can work for their salvation.


Where in that paragraph did he talk about salvation? The Church does not teach, and has never taught, salvation by works. He does not say that works save, nor does he ever say that one can be saved without accepting Jesus Christ. You're putting words and meanings into Francis' writings that aren't there.




> How long as you going to defend your false religion?

----------


## Schifference

I don't mind going to Hell if there is such a place. I live by my beliefs!

----------


## otherone

> No.


So God is not everyone's father?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We are not all brothers?


Sola_Fide seems to sincerely believe that all Arminians are unregenerate.  As such, he is rightfully refusing to speak peace to them, because he believes they are not saved.  I wish he'd actually debate this issue with me, but since he doesn't seem willing to do so I can simply point out that I think he's wrong when appropriate.

Sola_Fide has never sowed discord with me, Theocrat, erowe1, Tywysog Cymru, or any other posters here that profess to believe in the doctrines of grace.

I do believe he unknowingly sows discord among brothers, because I don't believe every single Arminian is unregenerate, but I don't believe he is deliberately sowing discord among brothers.

Nobody who is defending the Pope in this thread is brother of his or mine.  Or any other non-Christian.  So when he attacks them, whatever he's doing, its not "Sowing discord among brothers."

----------


## eduardo89

> We are not all brothers?





> No.


And this essentially sums up what Sola is about. He has no love in his heart, he has nothing but pride and hatred.




> Nobody who is defending the Pope in this thread is brother of his or mine.  Or any other non-Christian.


Congrats, you just showed yourself to be in the same boat as Sola. Love your neighbour, not "love your Calvinist circlejerk buddies."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wrong.  A  man can only come to God in repentance if he HAS been saved.  Repentance is a gift that God gives His elect.


While I agree with this, I don't remember any Apostle ever preaching the gospel that way.  Paul told the jailer "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved."  He didn't say "If God is drawing you to himself right now, he will save you, and then you'll believe."  He got into those detailed doctrines with people who were already saved.

----------


## Danan

> Then you'll burn in Hell for all of eternity.  That's a far cry from "Who cares."


"Burn in Hell for eternity"? I was under the impression that that's just what Christians tell children in order to scare them but that actually hell is "being apart from God forever" and heaven is "being together with God" eternally.

I don't have any connection with God right now either, so according to that, hell is just an eternally ongoing life as it is now. Doesn't sound too bad to me, although I guess it could get boring. Well, I could try to figure out religion in "hell", that would certainly take a while.

Also, "you'll burn in hell forever" is not a very nice thing to say to someone, FF.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And this essentially sums up what Sola is about. He has no love in his heart, he has nothing but pride and hatred.


I see no reason why denying that the unregenerate are our Christian brothers (Which I'm almost certain is what Sola_Fide is talking about, and I'm absolutely certain that that's what I'm talking about) automatically means you don't love them.

But the Bible is clear that we're supposed to treat believers as our brothers, not every person whatsoever.

Once again Sola_Fide is correct and you're attacking him over it.

----------


## otherone

> And this essentially sums up what Sola is about. He has no love in his heart, he has nothing but pride and hatred.



Again, if God is our father, doesn't that make all of us brothers?

----------


## eduardo89

> But the Bible is clear that we're supposed to treat believers as our brothers, not every person whatsoever.


No, we are commanded to treat everyone with love, not just fellow Christians.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I read a statement once, that I thought was from a pretty good observation point, "Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, Christians come preaching Jesus".  _Take just a moment to think about that, or not._

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I see no reason why denying that the unregenerate are our Christian brothers (Which I'm almost certain is what Sola_Fide is talking about, and I'm absolutely certain that that's what I'm talking about) automatically means you don't love them.
> 
> *But the Bible is clear that we're supposed to treat believers as our brothers, not every person whatsoever.*
> 
> Once again Sola_Fide is correct and you're attacking him over it.


So what are you supposed to do about non-believers?  Throw them under the bus?  Or, as the hymn goes "They'll know we're Christians by our Love".... so that maybe they will learn by our example and want to come to Christ also?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Again, if God is our father, doesn't that make all of us brothers?


It's what I was always taught.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Burn in Hell for eternity"? I was under the impression that that's just what Christians tell children in order to scare them but that actually hell is "being apart from God forever" and heaven is "being together with God" eternally.


I don't know if its a literal fire or not.  I don't really care.  What I do know is that God's Wrath is poured out on the unbelieving.  What exactly that looks like, whether that means God is actively pouring his wrath on them or whether that means God is simply withdrawing completely from the reprobate, I don't know (Jesus does ask the Father why he was *foresaking him* so the idea that the torment is the complete absence of God's presence is not without merit, since Christ suffered what the elect deserved in order to pay for their sins) but ultimately, I don't know for sure.  What I do know is that the experience will be worse than any experience anyone other than Christ ever suffered on this earth,  and it never ends.




> I don't have any connection with God right now either, so according to that, hell is just an eternally ongoing life as it is now. Doesn't sound too bad to me, although I guess it could get boring. Well, I could try to figure out religion in "hell", that would certainly take a while.


No, God has not completely withdrawn his grace from you on this earth.  This is where the denial of common grace fails, I think.  Every person on this earth, whether believing or not, is enjoying some of God's grace.  There will be none of that in Hell.




> Also, "you'll burn in hell forever" is not a very nice thing to say to someone, FF.


I don't care if a diseased person wants to pretend he's well.  The moral thing to do is to tell him he has a disease and that he needs to be healed.  You're dying in your sins right now.  I'm preaching the gospel to you in hopes that you will believe.  If that's "Mean" I can live with that.

To be clear, I'm not saying I want you to burn in Hell.  I don't.  I want you to repent and believe that you might be saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, if God is our father, doesn't that make all of us brothers?


God is not everyone's Father.  Jesus said the Pharisee's father was Satan.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's what I was always taught.


From who?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, we are commanded to treat everyone with love, not just fellow Christians.





> So what are you supposed to do about non-believers?  Throw them under the bus?  Or, as the hymn goes "They'll know we're Christians by our Love".... so that maybe they will learn by our example and want to come to Christ also?


You're missing my point.

Yes, we're supposed to love everyone, doesn't make them not our brothers.

I've already said I'm not always 100% on board with Sola's style, but that doesn't necessarily make him unloving.  Its very possible that he's so distressed regarding people believing damnable lies that he feels duty-bound to preach that way in order to help people to wake up.  Its perfectly possible to seem "Mean" while lovingly preaching the gospel.

But calling a damnable heretic a damnable heretic is NOT sowing discord among brothers.  My disagreement with Sola is exactly which heresies are inherently damnable, not on the fact that we should treat as unsaved, and preach the gospel to, those who preach such heresies.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God is not everyone's Father.  Jesus said the Pharisee's father was Satan.


I agree.




> From who?


Probably the RCC.  He's not 100% wrong though.  We ARE supposed to love everyone, even the unregenerate.

----------


## otherone

> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the RCC.  He's not 100% wrong though.  We ARE supposed to love everyone, even the unregenerate.



If God is the creator of the universe, and created every one of us, then he most certainly is everyone's father, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, murderer, blasphemer.  He created every one of them.  To say that he did not is saying he is not the creator.  If God created Satan, he is the father of the Pharisee.  If something exists that he has not created, then he is not God the father.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *You* can do both!  I prefer not to discuss religion with others (mostly).  Personal preference.


That's fine.  You probably wouldn't like me as much if you discussed religion with me too much

That said, I can keep the two separate in that my allies in the faith and my political allies aren't necessarily always the same.  I'm almost certain John Macarthur is saved and it wouldn't surpise me if Tom Woods was not, but there's no question I'd vote for Woods over Macarthur for President

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If God is the creator of the universe, and created every one of us, then he most certainly is everyone's father, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, murderer, blasphemer.  He created every one of them.  To say that he did not is saying he is not the creator.  If God created Satan, he is the father of the Pharisee.  If something exists that he has not created, then he is not God the father.


Bingo.

----------


## eduardo89

> If God is the creator of the universe, and created every one of us, then he most certainly is everyone's father, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, murderer, blasphemer.  He created every one of them.  To say that he did not is saying he is not the creator.  If God created Satan, he is the father of the Pharisee.  If something exists that he has not created, then he is not God the father.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to otherone again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sola_Fide- Try not to forget about this post:




> *
> Note: I asked you a few times if you believe that people who believe such and such are necessarily believers in damnable heresies.  Just to be clear, I'm not asking you if you AGREE with the views in question.  I'm well aware that you don't agree with any of them.  I'm asking if you believe that every person who holds the view in question is unregenerate.*
> 
> OK, I just read that article.  I didn't agree with everything in it,  but I agree with enough of it that I feel comfortable sending it to my dad (Who is currently confident CS Lewis is saved.)  I tend to agree with  Robbins' conclusions here.
> 
> I don't really agree with the Westminster confession that you have to believe every word of the Bible in order to be saved.  Mind you, I'd completely agree that its evil to preach that it isn't, but, I don't think someone who questions the inerrancy of a number in Numbers, for example, is necessarily unregenerate.  I understand why Robbins seems to hold that position,but honestly, he quotes the Westminster confession which, whatever its merits, isn't the Bible. And I don't see any Biblical text where it says every believer will accept the inerrency of the Bible.  2 Timothy 3:16 clearly teaches such inerrency, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone who rejects it is unregenerate.   And how far does this go?  Would you (or Robbins) say based on this that a Christian who believes that Genesis 1 and 2 are inerrant, but that days are symbolic of ages rather than being literal days, is unregenerate?  Or would we only apply this to people who knowingly state that certain scriptures are not infallible.
> 
> I do, however, have to agree with Robbins that a rejection of faith alone is damnable.  That's the most telling part to me.  I know we've discussed the atonement, and its odd because Robbins seems to agree with you but he was actually anathemized by OTC for disagreeing with them (And you), so I know he doesn't actually hold that everyone who rejects limited atonement is unregenerate (Even though he seems to in that article.)  I don't necessarily agree that every rejection of penal substitution is damnable, but it would depend on exactly what theory was held instead (To be clear, I hold to penal substitution, but I find it illogical that unlimited atonement advocates claim to do so.)  People like Rob Bell who deny ANY form of sacrifice for sins are clearly unsaved.  I don't think believing the ransom theory, as Justin Martyr did, is necessarily damnable in and of itself, although I'd agree that its an immature theology that rightfully isn't really accepted in churches today.  In other places, Robbins seems to agree with me, he did say that he believes Martyr was a Christian.  He said he probably wouldn't have made him a member of his church, with his doctrine of the atonement, but he didn't seem to doubt his salvation.  So once again, I think Robbins is contradicting what he's said in other places.
> 
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bingo.


That's not what Sola_Fide and I are talking about.  The Bible says Christians are ADOPTED into his family.  That means the unbelieving are not in his family, thus, not our brothers.

----------


## Danan

> What I do know is that the experience will be worse than any experience anyone other than Christ ever suffered on this earth,  and it never ends.


Right. You *know* that...

----------


## Danan

> If God is the creator of the universe, and created every one of us, then he most certainly is everyone's father, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, murderer, blasphemer.  He created every one of them.  To say that he did not is saying he is not the creator.  If God created Satan, he is the father of the Pharisee.  If something exists that he has not created, then he is not God the father.


No I guess they are right. It would make God the father of Satan and which would make us heretics God's grandchildren. So we are not their brothers, but... their nephews?

Do I have it right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Is it even worth it to engage the mockers?  We really need a "Christians only" subforum. Heck, I don't even mind if we include every cult claiming to be Christian as "Christian" for the purpose of that forum.  But I'm so sick of mockers derailing every religious thread with "Well, God doesn't exist, you're arrogant and hateful for holding to absolute morality, etc."

If you don't believe in God, and your only reason for being here is to mock God, go away.  Seriously.  The more you listen to people like me, Sola_Fide, or anyone else here who's preaching the true gospel, the more you're just increasing your own accountability before God.

----------


## eduardo89

> The more you listen to people like me, Sola_Fide, or anyone else here who's preaching the true gospel


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one.

----------


## PatriotOne

One would think the omnipotent god would at some point come clear up all the religious confusion after 2000+ years of death and destruction over Christianity.  You'd think he'd at least try to settle the 1000's of disputes between Christians instead of having them argue ad naseum over scripture in the bible.  I wonder if he's on the no fly list and unable to make an appearance.

----------


## Danan

> Is it even worth it to engage the mockers?  We really need a "Christians only" subforum. Heck, I don't even mind if we include every cult claiming to be Christian as "Christian" for the purpose of that forum.  But I'm so sick of mockers derailing every religious thread with "Well, God doesn't exist, you're arrogant and hateful for holding to absolute morality, etc."
> 
> If you don't believe in God, and your only reason for being here is to mock God, go away.  Seriously.  The more you listen to people like me, Sola_Fide, or anyone else here who's preaching the true gospel, the more you're just increasing your own accountability before God.


This is an OP about the Pope allegedly claiming that atheists can go to heaven. How is it not ok for us to be in this thread? If my mocking hurts your feelings maybe you shouldn't participate here. Or you simply don't go around telling other people that they are going to burn in hell forever and then you won't be mocked. It's not that I'm being offended by it (I couldn't care less since I don't believe any of it anyways). It's just that it sounds completely coldhearted and frankly idiotic and deserves mockery.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one.


I only mentioned him specifically because he's in the thread.  But yes, I believe he's preaching the true gospel.  I don't always approve of HOW he does it, but ultimately, it really doesn't matter, because if God has predestined anyone to be saved from his preaching, they will be saved, regardless of whether he himself is blameless before God in how he conducts himself or not.

Stop focusing on him and start focusing on the message he preaches, and the message that I preach.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is a post about the Pope allegedly claiming that atheists can go to heaven. How is it not ok for us to be in this thread? If my mocking hurts your feelings maybe you shouldn't participate here. Or you simply don't go around telling other people that they are going to burn in hell forever and then you won't be mocked. It's not that I'm being offended by it (I couldn't care less since I don't believe any of it anyways). It's just that it sounds completely coldhearted and frankly idiotic and deserves mockery.


I'm not offended, I just think you're an idiot.

----------


## eduardo89

> Stop focusing on him and start focusing on the message he preaches, and the message that I preach.


I do focus on the message he preaches, which is why I'm laughing at you calling it the true gospel.

----------


## eduardo89

> One would think the omnipotent god would at some point come clear up all the religious confusion after 2000+ years of death and destruction over Christianity.  You'd think he'd at least try to settle the 1000's of disputes between Christians instead of having them argue ad naseum over scripture in the bible.  I wonder if he's on the no fly list and unable to make an appearance.


There wasn't much confusion for the first 1500 years of Christianity and when there was it was very quickly resolved. It wasn't until Satan brought about the Protestant Deformation of Christianity that disunity really came to be.

----------


## Danan

> I'm not offended, I just think you're an idiot.


That's sad. I actually believe you're quite smart - and I mean it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do focus on the message he preaches, which is why I'm laughing at you calling it the true gospel.


You're confusing method with message.

----------


## eduardo89

> You're confusing method with message.


I don't think his method is a laughing matter, his method is all pride and hate, no love and compassion. I do think that calling his message the true gospel is laughable, though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's sad. I actually believe you're quite smart - and I mean it.


I honestly don't remember you from any political threads.  Its  very, VERY likely that I'd think the same of you if we engaged in those discussions.  

But your arguments against Christianity seem to be more emotional than substantive.

Let me be clear, I don't tell you you're on the path to damnation because I want to be mean.  I tell you that because its what the Bible teaches.  I tell you that because I hope you will believe the gospel so you *don't* go to Hell.

I hope you can tell the difference between what I'm doing and just being mean for its own sake, or wishing damnation on you.  I don't wish eternal damnation on anyone.

If you can't make that distinction, I honestly cannot help you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think his method is a laughing matter, his method is all pride and hate, no love and compassion.


As I said, you don't know that, but I agree that he sometimes preaches in a style that at least seems hateful.  I don't agree with him on everything.  I take the good and reject the bad.  Sola_Fide does correctly point out that what he or anyone else says should be weighed against the Bible.



> I do think that calling his message the true gospel is laughable, though.


I find it surprising that you believe I preach the gospel in that case, seeing as my message is very similar to his.  Maybe you're missing that because of the difference in method?

----------


## eduardo89

> I find it surprising that you believe I preach the gospel in that case, seeing as my message is very similar to his.  Maybe you're missing that because of the difference in method?


I see quite a bit of difference between you and Sola on a theological level, even though your man crush makes you believe you and he are more similar that you actually are.

There have been many issues where you have a Catholic point of view, for example with regards to predestination/election/atonement which are very Thomist as well as total depravity (which should be called total inability).

----------


## otherone

> That's not what Sola_Fide and I are talking about.  The Bible says Christians are ADOPTED into his family.  That means the unbelieving are not in his family, thus, not our brothers.




_Galatians 3:28 
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
_



_Romans 14:10-12
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
_

----------


## PatriotOne

> There wasn't much confusion for the first 1500 years of Christianity and when there was it was very quickly resolved. It wasn't until Satan brought about the Protestant Deformation of Christianity that disunity really came to be.


The Great Schism (1054)?

Even so, 500 yrs is a long time to remain silent when Christianity is in chaos.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Great Schism (1054)?
> 
> Even so, 500 yrs is a long time to remain silent when Christianity is in chaos.


The Great Schism was more political than anything else. The Orthodox at the Council of Florence of 1431–1449 even agreed to re-join the Church. All Eastern bishops but one were on board, but it was because of Mark of Ephesus that reconciliation was not possible.

Even today, the theological differences between Catholics and Orthodox are not that big, especially compared to the differences between Catholics and virtually every Protestant group. The Church fully recognises the validity of the Eastern Orthodox
priesthood and Sacraments.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I see quite a bit of difference between you and Sola on a theological level, even though_ your man crush_ makes you believe you and he are more similar that you actually are.


What the heck?



> There have been many issues where you have a Catholic point of view, for example with regards to predestination/election/atonement which are very Thomist as well as total depravity (which should be called total inability).


I don't see how the supra/infra debate is an essential part of the gospel, though.  

I don't really think I have a big problem with your views on election, although I see the atonement differently than you.  My biggest issues with you (And Catholicism) theologically have to do with the mass, baptismal regeneration, loss of salvation (Especially the way it happens in the RCC), not so much your views on predestination.

I've learned a lot from Sola_Fide, but I still disagree with him on a lot of stuff.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh boy... if you were right about this that would go well beyond "Rome"
> 
> This would mean that, to my understanding, almost all if not all Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Baptists are not saved either.
> 
> For me its the rejection of sola fide (The doctrine, not you) that is the dealbreaker, not the atonement issue, although their atonement view is wrong as well.


If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation?

Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

*
You see, "faith alone" is inextricably linked to particular redemption.  If Christ died for all men without exception and did the same thing for the ones going to heaven and the ones going to hell, it MUST be something man does that makes the difference between salvation and damnation.  Therefore, sola fide is denied if you deny the atonement.*

This is critical.  You can see how you can't separate these doctrines of grace from one another.  When you are soft on one, the rest crumble with it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _Galatians 3:28 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
> _


Only an idiot would interpret a passage like this to suggest that it has to do with  the unbelieving.  They are all one IN CHRIST.  Those who are not in  Christ are not being discussed.



> _Romans 14:10-12
> Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
> _


Again, in context that's talking about Christians judging Christians.  Not judging unbelievers or false gospel preachers.

----------


## eduardo89

> What the heck?


I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees it.




> I don't see how the supra/infra debate is an essential part of the gospel, though.  
> 
> I don't really think I have a big problem with your views on election, although I see the atonement differently than you.  My biggest issues with you (And Catholicism) theologically have to do with the mass, baptismal regeneration, loss of salvation (Especially the way it happens in the RCC), not so much your views on predestination.
> 
> I've learned a lot from Sola_Fide, but I still disagree with him on a lot of stuff.


You have issues with a lot of Catholic theology, but the big problem is you do not understand it.

----------


## TER

> The Great Schism was more political than anything else. The Orthodox at the Council of Florence of 1431–1449 even agreed to re-join the Church. All Eastern bishops but one were on board, but it was because of Mark of Ephesus that reconciliation was not possible.
> 
> Even today, the theological differences between Catholics and Orthodox are not that big, especially compared to the differences between Catholics and virtually every Protestant group. The Church fully recognises the validity of the Eastern Orthodox
> priesthood and Sacraments.


Eduardo, I respectfully disagree that it was mostly political, unless of course you mean the position of the Pope to be a political matter.  For the Orthodox, the idea of a Vicar of Christ or Head of the Church other then Christ it is not merely political but a deviation from the understanding of the structure of the Church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If God is the creator of the universe, and created every one of us, then he most certainly is everyone's father, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, murderer, blasphemer.  He created every one of them.  To say that he did not is saying he is not the creator.  If God created Satan, he is the father of the Pharisee.  If something exists that he has not created, then he is not God the father.


That is not what the Bible says.  "Father" in Biblical language means a spiritual Father, not Father in the sense of Creator like you were speaking about.  So when Jesus said unbelievers' father was Satan, he was right. You have to read the Bible to understand these things.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Even today, the theological differences between Catholics and Orthodox are not that big, especially compared to the differences between Catholics and virtually every Protestant group. The Church fully recognises the validity of the Eastern Orthodox
> priesthood and Sacraments.


And yet I could spent a million lifetimes reading Christians infighting with each other over what Christian doctrine is on the internet.  God too busy to help clarify to his confused children?

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, I respectfully disagree that it was mostly political, unless of course you mean the position of the Pope to be a political matter.  For the Orthodox, the idea of a Vicar of Christ or Head of the Church other then Christ it is not merely political but a deviation from the understanding of the structure of the Church.


Yes, I do consider it a political issue, especially in the context of the time, before the dogma of Papal Infallibility had been declared (which did not happen until 800+ years later). I think that the Bishop of Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction and the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was more of a political issue than a theological one.

----------


## TER

> If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation?


Christ died for the sins of everyone to abolish death, and thus EVERYONE will rise on the Last Day.  That is how Christ saved everyone.  On the Last Day, we will then be judged by how we loved and treated our neighbor, and at that time we will either experience the love of God as either an illuminating and divine Light, or a consuming and divine fire.  




> Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?


See above,

----------


## otherone

> That is not what the Bible says.  "Father" in Biblical language means a spiritual Father, not Father in the sense of Creator like you were speaking about.  So when Jesus said unbelievers' father was Satan, he was right. You have to read the Bible to understand these things.


So God did not create everything?

----------


## TER

> Yes, I do consider it a political issue, especially in the context of the time, before the dogma of Papal Infallibility had been declared (which did not happen until 800+ years later). I think that the Bishop of Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction at the time was more of a political issue than a theological one.


And hopefully this is will be the growing view as time advances amongst the majority of Catholics, because political issues can be resolved, but theological issues such as that are much harder if not impossible.  When the Roman Pontificate humbles itself as being first of equals instead of Supreme and Infallible leader, then we will see blessed reunion between the two churches.  I pray Pope Francis leads the way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation?
> 
> Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?
> 
> *
> You see, "faith alone" is inextricably linked to particular redemption.  If Christ died for all men without exception and did the same thing for the ones going to heaven and the ones going to hell, it MUST be something man does that makes the difference between salvation and damnation.  Therefore, sola fide is denied if you deny the atonement.*
> 
> This is critical.  You can see how you can't separate these doctrines of grace from one another.  When you are soft on one, the rest crumble with it.


I agree with you from a logical standpoint.  Logically, it doesn't make sense.  But most people who hold to those positions don't get that far.

Regarding your bolded point, Salvation is by grace, through faith.  Arminians try to argue that the grace being discussed is given to all, and that its faith that makes the difference, but they don't believe that anyone can be saved without grace.  They don't claim man can save himself.  Again, I get your point that logically if you think deeply into it it falls apart.  Ultimately, I believe Arminians who are saved are inconsistent.  A consistent Arminian will end up either embracing universalism (Definitely a false gospel, definitely damnable), rejecting penal substitution (A serious error, but I did question whether its always damnable in my post about CS Lewis) or claiming that Hell solely has to do with free will choice rather than actual punishment (Which I believe is almost certainly damnable.) 

Here's where I disagree with you, S_F.  You're taking the logical conclusion of Arminanism, assume that every Arminian takes it to its logical conclusion, and then using that as your basis to argue that it is a damnable heresy.  The reality, as James White excellently put it when refuting Marc Carpenter, most Arminians do not deny that Christ atoned.  They inconsistently hold to the fact that he did. 

Ultimately, logically, you are correct.  If Christ died for everyone's sins, it wouldn't make a difference.  Most Arminians simply don't understand this.

----------


## eduardo89

> And hopefully this is will be the growing view as time advances amongst the majority of Catholics, because political issues can be resolved, but theological issues such as that are much harder if not impossible.  When the Roman Pontificate humbles itself as being first of equals instead of Supreme and Infallible leader, then we will see blessed reunion between the two churches.  I pray Pope Francis leads the way.


I do pray that this issue can be resolved, it would be perhaps the happiest day of my life after the birth of my daughter (and future children) as well as my future wedding!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> 3Blessed are the *poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven*.
> 
> 4Blessed are *they that mourn: for they shall be comforted*.
> 
> 5Blessed are the *meek: for they shall inherit the earth*.
> 
> 6Blessed are they which do *hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled*.
> 
> 7Blessed are the *merciful: for they shall obtain mercy*.
> ...


What the hell is the argument?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees it.


You're confused.

The issue here is that there's a ton of relativistic crap in this thread, from both the Catholics and the atheists.  Other than me, Sola was the only one to actually address it.  Good for him.

I admire his willingness to stand up for what he believes  even though he knows full well that its going to get him hatred from virtually everyone here.

I have a number of disagreements with him, in fact, we apparently don't even 100% agree on what essential gospel doctrine is.  

The reason I defend him so often is because he's attacked so often, and usually without any merit or logic.  I'd honestly probably spend more time actually disagreeing with him if it wasn't for absolutely ridiculous crap like 90% of this thread.

Who should I go after first, the person who I feel goes a little too far with Calvinism/predestination, or the people who are outright denying the gospel?

----------


## eduardo89

> You're confused.


I'd be ashamed of having a man crush on Sola as well.




> The issue here is that there's a ton of relativistic crap in this thread, from both the Catholics and the atheists.  Other than me, Sola was the only one to actually address it.  Good for him.


What 'relativistic crap' is coming from Catholics in this thread, which to the extent of my knowledge would only be Cajun and myself?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Regarding your bolded point, Salvation is by grace, through faith.  Arminians try to argue that the grace being discussed is given to all, and that its faith that makes the difference.


Yes, Arminians (and Roman Catholics and others) say that man is saved BY his faith, not through it, but BY it. This is the error that denies faith alone and the atonement.

----------


## TER

> You're confused.
> 
> The issue here is that there's a ton of relativistic crap in this thread, from both the Catholics and the atheists.  Other than me, Sola was the only one to actually address it.  Good for him.
> 
> I admire his willingness to stand up for what he believes  even though he knows full well that its going to get him hatred from virtually everyone here.
> 
> I have a number of disagreements with him, in fact, we apparently don't even 100% agree on what essential gospel doctrine is.  
> 
> The reason I defend him so often is because he's attacked so often, and usually without any merit or logic.  I'd honestly probably spend more time actually disagreeing with him if it wasn't for absolutely ridiculous crap like 90% of this thread.
> ...


Isolating people and considering yourself greater then others is completely opposite to the teachings of Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What 'relativistic crap' is coming from Catholics in this thread, which to the extent of my knowledge would only be Cajun and myself?


With all due respect to both of you, Cajun argued that we shouldn't judge the preachers of false gospels to be unregenerate, and you defended Pope Francis.  Both of which were relativistic notions.




> I'd be ashamed of having a man crush on Sola as well.


What the heck is a "man-crush"?  Lol.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, Arminians (and Roman Catholics and others) say that man is saved BY his faith, not through it, but BY it. This is the error that denies faith alone and the atonement.


No, Catholicism teaches we saved by grace, through faith and works inspired by the Holy Spirit's love. We are saved solely by the grace of the Cross, with which we must co-operate through faith -- but a faith that works.

----------


## otherone

> Who should I go after first, the person who I feel goes a little too far with Calvinism/predestination, or the people who are outright denying the gospel?


Why should you "go after" anyone?  Sola is chided because he takes any opportunity to attack the Catholic Church, or anyone who disagrees with his theology.  He does it on any forum he can insinuate his views.  He uses derision and divisive language to make his arguments, questions others fallacies while peppering his posts with all manner of fallacies and insults.  "idiot" is not an argument, btw, and I notice you've picked up this method as well.  Does Calvinist evangelizing include brow-beating?  And if evangelizing is not required for salvation, and attacking unbelievers is a waste of time if they're not already the "elect", then why the $#@! do you people hang out here anyway?  To congratulate yourself on your special place next to the Allmighty?

----------


## eduardo89

> With all due respect to both of you, Cajun argued that we shouldn't judge the preachers of false gospels to be unregenerate, and you defended Pope Francis.  Both of which were relativistic notions.


We don't have the same understanding of what 'unregenerate' means. The Bible teaches that are born again through baptism, so every baptised man is born again.

I definitely defended Pope Francis, because the title of the OP is not what he said, not even close. He never said that anyone who rejects Christ will go to Heaven, he said that God's mercy is infinite, but that we must ask for forgiveness, meaning we must acknowledge He is God. Go back and read the letter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, Arminians (and Roman Catholics and others) say that man is saved BY his faith, not through it, but BY it. This is the error that denies faith alone and the atonement.


Roman Catholics have sacraments and works in there.  If they believe the teaching of their church (Some do not) they believe a gospel that is completely false, and are thus unregenerate.

Sola, I know men don't define truth, but if Arminanism is really a false gospel, to the point where every person believing in it is unregenerate why is it that pretty much nobody of any relevance in the Reformed community thinks so?  Again, I know those people  don't determine truth, but if that were the case, why are you, Brandan Kraft (Who is a self-admitted hyper-calvinist) and the OTC people (Who would claim that you also believe in a false gospel because you speak peace to people who speak peace to Arminians, and as such are completely off the deep end) the only people who seem to get this?

An Arminian might say he's saved  by faith, heck, I've probably said that before, but I don't think that's really what they believe.  Ultimately, the majority of Arminians do affirm total depravity (I would seriously question the salvation of anyone  who actually knew what total depravity means [rather than confusing it with utter depravity] and rejected it) and believe in perveniant grace rather than unconditional  election.  Again, its clear to me, and you, why that's unbiblical, but I don't see why is a damnable error, particularly if its held to in ignorance or by being stuck in tradition.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure I didn't understand the illogic of unlimited atonement until you explained it to me.  I actually did believe in limited atonement at the time, but that was more because I didn't have any logical or moral issues with it than because I knew it was scriptural or that the other position was illogical.  And I did not believe  in unconditiional election or irresistible grace at the time (And before you  ask, yes, I am the only person I have ever heard of who accepted limited atonement without accepting unconditional election and irresistible grace at the time.)

Although my parents are Calvinists now, and have been for several years, I was raised in Arminianism for most of my life.  It took time for me to reject those traditions.

That does not mean I was unsaved at the time.  I know I was, because I know the Holy Spirit was working in my life.  Not only because I myself have seen it, but because other strong Christians have told me so, including my mother.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, Catholicism teaches we saved by grace, through faith and works inspired by the Holy Spirit's love. We are saved solely by the grace of the Cross, with which we must co-operate through faith -- but a faith that works.


That's right.  You believe you are saved BY your actings of faith.

God gives grace to everyone, but only the ones who act in faith are saved.  This is the doctrine of demons that doesn't save.

The Bible teaches that faith doesn't come from man, but faith is a gift from God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why should you "go after" anyone?  Sola is chided because he takes any opportunity to attack the Catholic Church, or anyone who disagrees with his theology.  He does it on any forum he can insinuate his views.  He uses derision and divisive language to make his arguments, questions others fallacies while peppering his posts with all manner of fallacies and insults.  "idiot" is not an argument, btw, and I notice you've picked up this method as well.  Does Calvinist evangelizing include brow-beating?  And if evangelizing is not required for salvation, and attacking unbelievers is a waste of time if they're not already the "elect", then why the $#@! do you people hang out here anyway?  To congratulate yourself on your special place next to the Allmighty?


I've seen him do that sometimes, and I've called him out for it when he has.  For instance, if you'll remember that Seventh Day Adventist Church getting attacked thread, while I did call the people who were accusing Sola_Fide of supporting murder out, I also called him out for posting a theological comment on that thread.

As for my style, no, Calvinist evangelizing shouldn't include "Brow-beating."  However, we know that God chooses who will be saved and as such we needn't be afraid to preach the gospel as it is rather than watering it down out of a fear of offending people.  This is one of the worst problems with Arminianism.




> We don't have the same understanding of what 'unregenerate' means.


OK.




> The Bible teaches that are born again through baptism, so every baptised man is born again.


I do not agree.


> I definitely defended Pope Francis, because the title of the OP is not what he said, not even close. He never said that anyone who rejects Christ will go to Heaven, he said that God's mercy is infinite, but that we must ask for forgiveness, meaning we must acknowledge He is God. Go back and read the letter.


It certainly seems like he believes if they follow their conscience, they are saved.   Now, I get that he's not infallble in this case, so you can simply disagree with him, but that is what he said.  You're missing it, IMO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God gives grace to everyone, but only the ones who act in faith are saved. This is the doctrine of demons that doesn't save.


I don't think that's eduardo's position.  This seems more like the Arminian position than the Catholic one.  I believe that someone who believes God gives grace to everyone, but that those who believe will be saved, is not necessarily unsaved.

Eduardo's position is that you have to have faith, and then avoid mortal sins or confess to a priest.  That's faith + works.  That, I do believe to be a damnable heresy, because it outright rejects the gospel as it was actually preached by the Apostles, rather than rejecting doctrines that the Apostles taught to people who were already in the church, as the Arminians do.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Oh, Paul, how you have succeeded in so many ways.  Congratulations on your coopting of a simple message.  Soon, we will see the current liberty/freedom message go the way of Paul/Saul.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's right.  You believe you are saved BY your actings of faith.


No, we are saved by the grace of the Cross alone. 




> God gives grace to everyone, but only the ones who act in faith are saved.  This is the doctrine of demons that doesn't save.


Everyone is given grace, but only the Elect are given efficacious grace to be saved. God gives the Elect enabling grace which is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation. 




> The Bible teaches that faith doesn't come from man, but faith is a gift from God.


I agree.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think that's eduardo's position.  This seems more like the Arminian position than the Catholic one.  I believe that someone who believes God gives grace to everyone, but that those who believe will be saved, is not necessarily unsaved.
> 
> Eduardo's position is that you have to have faith, and then avoid mortal sins or confess to a priest.  That's faith + works.  That, I do believe to be a damnable heresy, because it outright rejects the gospel as it was actually preached by the Apostles, rather than rejecting doctrines that the Apostles taught to people who were already in the church, as the Arminians do.


Yes Arminians believe that they are saved BY their actings of faith.  Sure, Roman Catholics throw sacrementalism in there too.  But both are a rejection of the gospel of sovereign grace.

The Synod of Dordt in the Rejection of Errors is really good at explaining and rejecting the Arminian heresy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes Arminians believe that they are saved BY their actings of faith.  Sure, Roman Catholics throw sacrementalism in there too.  But both are a rejection of the gospel of sovereign grace.
> 
> The Synod of Dordt in the Rejection of Errors is really good at explaining and rejecting the Arminian heresy.


Did the Synod of Dordt claim that every single Arminian is unregenerate?

I'm not denying that Arminianism is a heresy.  What we disagree on is whether every Arminian is unregenerate.  I'm not defending Arminianism here.

Are you confident that you are correct on this issue?  Do you believe it is possible that you could be in error?

(The issue I'm talking about here is that all Arminians are unregenerate, not the issue of predestination, limited atonement, and the doctrines of grace.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> With all due respect to both of you, Cajun argued that we shouldn't judge the preachers of false gospels to be unregenerate, and you defended Pope Francis.  Both of which were relativistic notions.
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck is a "man-crush"?  Lol.


No, *I* didn't "argue" that...I quoted the Bible on judging to you.

----------


## eduardo89

> I
> It certainly seems like he believes if they follow their conscience, they are saved.   Now, I get that he's not infallble in this case, so you can simply disagree with him, but that is what he said.  You're missing it, IMO.


Except he did not say that. Go back and read the letter.




> I don't think that's eduardo's position.  This seems more like the Arminian position than the Catholic one.  I believe that someone who believes God gives grace to everyone, but that those who believe will be saved, is not necessarily unsaved.
> 
> Eduardo's position is that you have to have faith, and then avoid mortal sins or confess to a priest.  That's faith + works.  That, I do believe to be a damnable heresy, because it outright rejects the gospel as it was actually preached by the Apostles, rather than rejecting doctrines that the Apostles taught to people who were already in the church, as the Arminians do.


Sola loves to lump in Arminians and Catholics as if we're the same. We are not. On many thing that Arminians and Calvinists disagree, Catholics and Calvinists agree upon. All 5 points of TULIP are reconcilable with Catholicism with minimal effort.

With regards to your second point. Scripture and the Church teach that we are saved solely by grace through faith, but that faith is manifested in works inspired by the Holy Spirit. Works alone and faith without works mean nothing.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

What in the hell is an Arminian?  What country do they hail from?

Who makes this $#@! up?  L...A...B..E..L. them, then you can understand that they are the e..n..e..m..y !

----------


## otherone

> That's right.  You believe you are saved BY your actings of faith.
> 
> God gives grace to everyone, but only the ones who act in faith are saved.  This is the doctrine of demons that doesn't save.


I'm guessing you've never been to catechism class, otherwise you'd know what Catholics believe about salvation. 

_We are saved BY GRACE alone not by faith alone.  Our good works SHOW the presence of the salvation grace._

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, *I* didn't "argue" that...I quoted the Bible on judging to you.


And you argued that the people Christ was talking about were preachers of false gospels.  I disagree with your interpretation.

@Sola_Fide- In Acts 16:31, after being asked what he must do to be saved, Paul tells him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

He does not say "You can't do anything to be saved, but if you are regenerated, you will believe the gospel, and that will be proof that you are saved."  He tells him to believe.

Why do you think that is?

----------


## phill4paul

I'll enter the celestial scat upon dying. That's enough for me. I'll part and be absorbed by many. "I" won't have any conscience of it. There's no Valhalla, Jannah or Heaven.
 Or any other mythical afterlife. 
  What is important is enlightenment. That is what the "not yet defined' imparts.
  Live and die well. Matters not your belief system AS LONG AS YOU BELIEF SYSTEM DOES NOT SUBJUGATE OR EXCORIATE THOSE THAT MEAN YOU NO HARM.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh, Paul, how you have succeeded in so many ways.  Congratulations on your coopting of a simple message.  Soon, we will see the current liberty/freedom message go the way of Paul/Saul.


Paul said that even in his day, in the first century, that Satan was in the churches transforming himself into an angel of light to deceive people.  He said that the abomination of desolation, as he called it, would set himself up in the house of God and declare himself to be God.   Paul called this man the "man of lawlessness".  I believe the seat of the papacy is this antichrist.  The Pope has declared himself to be God on earth.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm guessing you've never been to catechism class, otherwise you'd know what Catholics believe about salvation. 
> 
> _We are saved BY GRACE alone not by faith alone.  Our good works SHOW the presence of the salvation grace._


Sola know exactly what the Church teaches, but he likes to distort it and misrepresent it in order to make it seem like he's winning the debate. There is no way he does not know what the Church teaches because I have repeated it to him a few dozen times, including twice now in this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola loves to lump in Arminians and Catholics as if we're the same. We are not. On many thing that Arminians and Calvinists disagree, Catholics and Calvinists agree upon. All 5 points of TULIP are reconcilable with Catholicism with minimal effort.


I agree with you that they aren't the same.  I don't agree with him on this.

That said, how do you reconcile limited atonement or perseverance of the saints with Catholic doctrine?



> With regards to your second point. Scripture and the Church teach that we are saved solely by grace through faith, but that faith is manifested in works inspired by the Holy Spirit. Works alone and faith without works mean nothing.


The Church may  say that, but the fact that they believe grace can be lost by a free will choice to commit a mortal sin proves that they don't really believe that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Paul said that even in his day, in the first century, that Satan was in the churches transforming himself into an angel of light to deceive people.  He said that the abomination of desolation, as he called it, would set himself up in the house of God and declare himself to be God.   Paul called this man the "man of lawlessness".  I believe the seat of the papacy is this antichrist.  The Pope has declared himself to be God on earth.


Can you show me where the pope(s) have made this claim?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll enter the celestial scat upon dying. That's enough for me. I'll part and be absorbed by many. "I" won't have any conscience of it. There's no Valhalla, Jannah or Heaven.
>  Or any other mythical afterlife. 
>   What is important is enlightenment. That is what the "not yet defined' imparts.
>   Live and die well. Matters not your belief system* AS LONG AS YOU BELIEF SYSTEM DOES NOT SUBJUGATE OR EXCORIATE THOSE THAT MEAN YOU NO HARM.*


OK, a non-universalist system in which Sola_Fide, Pope Francis, and Richard Dawkins all go to the same place is just bizarre

----------


## eduardo89

> Can you show me where the pope(s) have made this claim?


He hasn't and the Church has never taught that. Again, he's lying about Catholicism, intentionally, of course.

----------


## malkusm

Thread is tl;dr

My general question: Is someone who professes love for God, but lives their life in opposition to the teachings of His word, more worthy of salvation than someone who expresses doubt about His existence, but lives their life embodying the virtues of humanity that He laid out in scripture?

More generally: Are we, as men, so short-sighted to judge each other solely on our belief and not on our action? Who are we to judge one another?

----------


## phill4paul

> Thread is tl;dr
> 
> My general question: Is someone who professes love for God, but lives their life in opposition to the teachings of His word, more worthy of salvation than someone who expresses doubt about His existence, but lives their life embodying the virtues of humanity that He laid out in scripture?
> 
> More generally: Are we, as men, so short-sighted to judge each other solely on our belief and not on our action? Who are we to judge one another?


  Petty tyrants. Key to the kingdom keepers.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He hasn't and the Church has never taught that. Again, he's lying about Catholicism, intentionally, of course.


I'll let him prove it if he can.  But I suspect that you may be correct that he can't.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And you argued that the people Christ was talking about were preachers of false gospels.  I disagree with your interpretation.


Nope, I never said I interpreted it that way. The way I interpret it (and said so) is that we are to leave judgment with regard to being saved to God alone...and I asked you why you (and Sola) take it upon yourselves to ignore that and claim that some are "damned to hell"

----------


## malkusm

> More generally: Are we, as men, so short-sighted to judge each other solely on our belief _the belief we profess to others_ and not on our action? Who are we to judge one another?


Fixed to be more clear

----------


## Miss Annie

John 3:16-17....... 
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

----------


## eduardo89

> I agree with you that they aren't the same.  I don't agree with him on this.


Which is one of the reasons I don't think you and Sola are the same and I have some respect for you. I don't believe you to be intellectually dishonest and a habitual liar. You misrepresent Catholicism often, but I do attribute that to your lack of knowledge and lack of will to understand Catholicism rather than malice.




> That said, how do you reconcile limited atonement or perseverance of the saints with Catholic doctrine?


The limited atonement is better described as limited intent. We've gone through this one before. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to save all men, but it had a limited intent of only saving the elect.

With regards to perseverance of the saints, the question is how one defines the term "saints.' In the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. If one defines 'saint' in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance."

The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. Aquinas said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. Aquinas said, "Predestination to final salvation most certainly and infallibly takes effect." 




> The Church may  say that, but the fact that they believe grace can be lost by a free will choice to commit a mortal sin proves that they don't really believe that.


No, the Elect will never lose their efficacious saving grace. They will also be reconciled with God. They are the ones that will persevere to the end and be saved, because God intended them to be saved from the beginning of creation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nope, I never said I interpreted it that way. The way I interpret it (and said so) is that we are to leave judgment with regard to being saved to God alone...and I asked you why you (and Sola) take it upon yourselves to ignore that and claim that some are "damned to hell"


Only God knows who is and is not damned to Hell.

I do judge that those who preach false gospels are unregenerate, as per Galatians 1:8.  Paul says "Let them be eternally condemned" (With an implied "Unless they repent") and I completely agree with Paul.

----------


## otherone

> Nope, I never said I interpreted it that way. The way I interpret it (and said so) is that we are to leave judgment with regard to being saved to God alone...and I asked you why you (and Sola) take it upon yourselves to ignore that and claim that some are "damned to hell"


It appears at times that it is the Bible some people worship instead of God.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

As a person baptized Catholic, I am most proud of this Pope than any others I've been alive for.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Which is one of the reasons I don't think you and Sola are the same and I have some respect for you. I don't believe you to be intellectually dishonest and a habitual liar. You misrepresent Catholicism often, but I do attribute that to your lack of knowledge and lack of will to understand Catholicism rather than malice.


I said that we preached the same gospel, not that we were the same.




> The limited atonement is better described as limited intent. We've gone through this one before. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to save all men, but it had a limited intent of only saving the elect.


Of course it was sufficient to save all.  But you went beyond that to say that not only could Christ have died to save every person, but that he actually did.  That's where I disagreed.



> With regards to perseverance of the saints, the question is how one defines the term "saints.' In the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. If one defines 'saint' in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance."
> 
> The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. Aquinas said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. Aquinas said, "Predestination to final salvation most certainly and infallibly takes effect."


OK.

So you don't know if you're predestined to heaven or not?  Is that tough to live with?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, we are saved by the grace of the Cross alone. 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is given grace, but only the Elect are given efficacious grace to be saved. God gives the Elect enabling grace which is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation. 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.


Here are all the Canons of the council of Trent which declare me anathema for believing in justification by faith alone.

http://carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification

Do you not know what you are supposed to believe, or what?  Im confused...

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> He hasn't and the Church has never taught that. Again, he's lying about Catholicism, intentionally, of course.


Even if he is? Who gives a $#@!?

What, you take the Bible literally or something.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yeah, I've seen the Council of Trent.  Satan's wicked, anti-Christian council.

That still doesn't prove the Pope claims to be God though.  That's a lofty claim that I think you need to prove.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 3:16-17....... 
> 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
> 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.





> John 17:9
> 
> I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.


Jesus prayed for the chosen ones, not the world.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *malkusm*More generally: Are we, as men, so short-sighted to judge each other solely on our belief _the belief we profess to others_ and not on our action? Who are we to judge one another?


Ah, yes...I remember that question.

----------


## eduardo89

> Here are all the Canons of the council of Trent which declare me anathema for believing in justification by faith alone.
> 
> http://carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification
> 
> Do you not know what you are supposed to believe, or what?  Im confused...


You are not anathematised because you are not Catholic. Only a Catholic can be excommunicated from the Church. 

But please, show me where the Church teaches that salvation is not by the grace of the Cross alone. And don't use anti-Catholic biased bull$#@! websites like carm.org.

----------


## Miss Annie

I am a Christian.  I am saved by grace alone, not works lest any man should boast.  I had freewil to make that choice, as I believe the bible clearly shows everyone else does too.  
I love Jesus.  Not simply for the promise of heaven, but the daily fellowship and brotherly love.  We should not judge others, we should pray for them.  

This thread is just sad.  So full of man's philosophy and so lacking in the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Jesus prayed for the chosen ones, not the world.


I honestly don't ever remember seeing this verse, ever.

----------


## phill4paul

$#@! a bunch of heaven. I traced and found the negative lead in an old curmudgeons house today. Admittedly, the old coot ($#@! with no social thanks) didn't understand..but....I did a good deed. In fact the $#@! is my personal project. After 3 months of bitching at each other he has finally came to accept the I'll interveign and help him. 
  If gawd or jesus is gonna deny me a spot because I don't believe then have a real big $#@! you. I'm going out caring. Not about some pie-in-the-sky deity. Because I am.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am a Christian. I am saved by grace alone, not works lest any man should boast. *I had freewil to make that choice*, as I believe the bible clearly shows everyone else does too. 
> I love Jesus. Not simply for the promise of heaven, but the daily fellowship and brotherly love. We should not judge others, we should pray for them.


See, Sola, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  I'm 95% sure she has no idea that she just contradicted herself.

Now, Miss Annie, the Bible does not claim that you made any choices relating to your own salvation.  There is no scripture whatsoever that teaches this.  The Bible does, however, teach predestination in Ephesians 1, Isaiah 10, Romans 9,  1 Corinthians 1, John 6, and John 10.

(This isn't necessarily an exhaustive list.)

----------


## eduardo89

> I said that we preached the same gospel, not that we were the same.


I don't believe you preach the same gospel at all. You preach a misinterpreted one, but I do believe you are honestly searching for the Truth. Sola preaches something completely alien to true Christianity because everything he preaches is devoid of love.




> Of course it was sufficient to save all.  But you went beyond that to say that not only could Christ have died to save every person, but that he actually did.  That's where I disagreed.


I never said it saves all. It most certainly does not. That's why I said His sacrifice is sufficient for all, but not intended for all.




> So you don't know if you're predestined to heaven or not?  Is that tough to live with?


You don't know if you are predestined as one of the Elect, only God knows that. So no, it is not difficult to live with not knowing something that only God knows.

----------


## eduardo89

> See, Sola, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  I'm 95% sure she has no idea that she just contradicted herself.
> 
> Now, Miss Annie, the Bible does not claim that you made any choices relating to your own salvation.  There is no scripture whatsoever that teaches this.  The Bible does, however, teach predestination in Ephesians 1, Isaiah 10, Romans 9,  1 Corinthians 1, John 6, and John 10.
> 
> (This isn't necessarily an exhaustive list.)


*Predestination does not negate free will.*  Even if you believe in unconditional election, which many Catholics do, it is not God who damns us to Hell, but our free choosing to reject His gift.

And I do not believe Miss Annie is Catholic, just in case you were thinking that.

----------


## otherone

> See, Sola, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  I'm 95% sure she has no idea that she just contradicted herself.
> 
> Now, Miss Annie, the Bible does not claim that you made any choices relating to your own salvation.


She had free will to choose to be a Christian.  Don't you?

----------


## Miss Annie

> See, Sola, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  I'm 95% sure she has no idea that she just contradicted herself.
> 
> Now, Miss Annie, the Bible does not claim that you made any choices relating to your own salvation.  There is no scripture whatsoever that teaches this.  The Bible does, however, teach predestination in Ephesians 1, Isaiah 10, Romans 9,  1 Corinthians 1, John 6, and John 10.
> 
> (This isn't necessarily an exhaustive list.)


I am well versed in Calvinism and fully aware of the dangers of the heresy as well.  i am NOT going to debate it because as you can see....... the debates NEVER accomplish anything.  
I will say that the sovereignty of God will not and does not override the character of God.  
Calvinism is a false doctrine that takes the patient, loving, long suffering character of God and turns him into a monster.  And I would NEVER want to stand in front of Jesus and tell him that I had the gumption to ever say that there was any kind of limitation on His atonement and what He did for humanity.  The thought of that makes me shudder.  
When the bible says that God so loved THE WORLD....... it meant THE WORLD.  When it says WHOSOEVER, it meant WHOSOEVER.  The way that the scriptures are twisted to accompany this horrifying doctrine is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are not anathematised because you are not Catholic. Only a Catholic can be excommunicated from the Church. 
> 
> But please, show me where the Church teaches that salvation is not by the grace of the Cross alone. And don't use anti-Catholic biased bull$#@! websites like carm.org.


WHAT?

Do you read the declarations of your own church?  Read the link I just posted.  That's YOUR  church declaring me anathema for believing in justification by faith alone.

----------


## eduardo89

> WHAT?
> 
> Do you read the declarations of your own church?  Read the link I just posted.  That's YOUR  church declaring me anathema for believing in justification by faith alone.


Once again, only a Catholic can be anathematised (which means excommunicated) from the Church. The Council of Trent was denouncing heresy which Catholics may not believe. If you are not Catholic, you cannot be excommunicated from the Church. You have to be a member of something for them to kick you out!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe you preach the same gospel at all. You preach a misinterpreted one, but I do believe you are honestly searching for the Truth. Sola preaches something completely alien to true Christianity because everything he preaches is devoid of love.


Again, you don't know this.  He knows, and God knows.  I agree that he comes across that way, but you don't know his heart.






> I never said it saves all. It most certainly does not. That's why I said His sacrifice is sufficient for all, but not intended for all.


OK, fair enough.  I agree depending on how you define "Sufficient for all."




> You don't know if you are predestined as one of the Elect, only God knows that. So no, it is not difficult to live with not knowing something that only God knows.


Can you prove this Biblically?




> *Predestination does not negate free will.*  Even if you believe in unconditional election, which many Catholics do, it is not God who damns us to Hell, but our free choosing to reject His gift.
> 
> And I do not believe Miss Annie is Catholic, just in case you were thinking that.


I agree with you that double predestination is false.  That has nothing  to do with free will though.  Those who reject God are left in slavery to their sins.  God does not proactively make them into slaves of sin, they already are.  But I still wouldn't call that "free will".  Free will implies an ability, rather than merely a duty, to choose God.

I did not believe Miss Annie is a Catholic, and while I corrected her view, my real point in responding was to challenge Sola_Fide.  

I understand Sola_Fide's theological reasoning behind which he thinks Arminianism is a false gospel.  The thing is, when he judges their hearts, he acts like they actually understand the logical implications of their beliefs as much as he does.  Frankly, I'd agree that an Arminian who understood and agreed with Sola_Fide's logic with regards to what Arminianism is, and still accepted it, they would be unregenerate (Please don't nitpick my use of this word, I know what you believe it means and you know what I think it means.  I don't want to say "Damned" because that would imply they could not be regenerated at any future time, which isn't necessarily the case).  The thing is, most Arminians simply do not understand that.  They don't understand, for instance, that claiming Christ died for every person, without any "Efficient only for the elect" qualifier, logcially leads to universalism.  Most people who believe in unlimited atonement in that manner do not understand where their gospel logically leads.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> She had free will to choose to be a Christian.  Don't you?


Assuming she is a Christian, she is only a Christian because she was chosen.

I'm only a Christian because I was chosen.

I certainly didn't have a choice in the matter.  If I did, I would have rejected God, as was my nature.




> I am well versed in Calvinism and fully aware of the dangers of the heresy as well.  i am NOT going to debate it because as you can see....... the debates NEVER accomplish anything.  
> I will say that the sovereignty of God will not and does not override the character of God.  
> Calvinism is a false doctrine that takes the patient, loving, long suffering character of God and turns him into a monster.  And I would NEVER want to stand in front of Jesus and tell him that I had the gumption to ever say that there was any kind of limitation on His atonement and what He did for humanity.  The thought of that makes me shudder.  
> When the bible says that God so loved THE WORLD....... it meant THE WORLD.  When it says WHOSOEVER, it meant WHOSOEVER.  The way that the scriptures are twisted to accompany this horrifying doctrine is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.


You don't understand the doctrines of limited atonement or unconditional election.

I twisted so many scriptures to stay an Arminian for a very long time.  God eventually woke me up.

----------


## TER

> Christ died for the sins of everyone to abolish death, and thus EVERYONE will rise on the Last Day.  That is how Christ saved everyone.  On the Last Day, we will then be judged by how we loved and treated our neighbor, and at that time we will either experience the love of God as either an illuminating and divine Light, or a consuming and divine fire.


Hi Sola, in case you wanted to reply to my earlier post, here it is again.  Feel free to tell me what year the Church started to get this all wrong.  Everyone after the Apostles?  But you wouldn't deny the laying of the hands to transfer the Spirit, for it is Biblical!  And every saint who has ever come from the Church has understood it to be so!  The interesting thing is I can pinpoint when the doctrines you believe in and blindly accept were first taught.   By men in fact.  Oh the irony some would heckle one as under the rule of men, when they indeed have chosen the teachings of men over the witness of the Body of Christ.  To choose somebody over the Holy Spirit. 

 Have you ever really read St. Paul's letters, in the context of his time and his closeness in the birth of the Church?  He clearly taught the apostolic teaching that there is One Body as there is One Christ.  He alone however did not make this up.  These are the doctrines and the writings he handed down from him which were agreed upon by the Bishops and spread throughout the lands.  This is how the faith was maintained pure and holy, on account of the Holy Spirit.  This is the Church today as it was back then, and the above quote is the historical, concrete and demonstrate-able truth.  Upon not the teachings of one Apostle or man in the Church, but by the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal glory in, to many, indeed to all who labored till the end.  A reflection of love as communing in many, a mystery of the Trinity and image of divine Love.

But you have chosen one John Calvin, or one Martin Luther over every man who lived before him, even the Church.  

Can you not see the irony, you who has put yourself above all others, salted with your fake acts of humility, meanwhile destroying the hope of many and creating division and judgment when you, you little man, have become the divider himself.  Get behind me Satan!

Christ has saved you from eternal death, just has he saved and will save every Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Buddhist, Atheists, all the way and including the worshippers of Satan.  There will be a bodily and real resurrection for all men who ever lived, and the reason this is so is because the Incarnate Word of God (Which is Christ, and NOT the Bible), has destroyed the separation between God and man, between the Creator and the created, our own nature and with the Divine Nature.  Christ saved everyone from eternal separation from God by His perfect life, obedience, and love.  By His perfect sacrifice and act of love on the Cross, God came to destroy all sin and the power of death which sin did created.

Jesus has already saved everyone, for through His Death, death is destroyed.  We are all saved in Christ.

Either we will rise up to joy and celebration or shun away from fear and guilt, and we will all give an account of our lives and how we loved others, how we forgave others, how we showed mercy towards other, and what we had done with our God-given body and talents.

 And by the same measure we judged others will we be judged, just as Christ plainly spoke.

  Make no mistake, pretending ignorance of these commandments will not be tolerated before the Light of God at the end.  Repent now, my brother, and humble yourself.  Before God and His Body the Church, and afford more respect instead of being an enemy.  

The Church of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit, and yours by John Calvin.

Repent and pray to God on your knees for mercy.

Lofty defenses of God is not what is needed, especially when all it does is cause division.  Rather, a contrite and humble heart is what is needed.  Mercy and forgiveness is first needed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Miss Annie- If you have any scriptures to defend your position against Romans 8-9, John 6, John 10, 1 Corinthians 1, Ephesians 1, and Isaiah 10, I'd be willing to hear them.  In fact, I want to hear them.

On the other hand, I hope you're willing to bow before what God says in his Word, whatever that may be, regardless of what your emotions say.  My emotions got in my way of seeing the Truth for a long time.

----------


## phill4paul

The problem with you gawd seekers is that you look to an external force to "save" you or to "guide" you. I don't need that. That "force" r3sides in me. I exercise it. I don't do it over false treasures of a "heaven."  I'm not one to wear a white robe and genuflect for eternity. That would suck.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christ died for the sins of everyone to abolish death, and thus EVERYONE will rise on the Last Day. That is how Christ saved everyone. On the Last Day, we will then be judged by* how we loved and treated our neighbor*, and at that time we will either experience the love of God as either an illuminating and divine Light, or a consuming and divine fire.


Galatians 1:8 says that that's a false gospel and those who preach it should be eternally condemned.

See,  Sola, this is an example of someone who actually takes Unlimited Atonement to its logical conclusion, namely, he actually says everyone is saved, and then people are judged on their works.  This is a false gospel.

----------


## TER

Sorry about all the typos.  I have to go to bed!

----------


## eduardo89

> Again, you don't know this.  He knows, and God knows.  I agree that he comes across that way, but you don't know his heart.


I am not talking about what is in his heart, I am talking about what he preaches.




> OK, fair enough.  I agree depending on how you define "Sufficient for all."


Would Christ need to die again if He wanted to save every man? No, he would not. His sacrifice was enough to save every man if that had been His intent.




> Can you prove this Biblically?


Can you prove Biblically that you know you are one of the Elect? No, you cannot. Only God has that knowledge. Only God can see the future, we cannot. As John Calvin said, "we are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect - that is for God alone, not for us, to do." For you to judge yourself as one of the Elect you are judging others as damned, which you have no right to do. You have no right to judge someone as saved or unsaved, that is God's job alone.

If we can examine our conscience and talk with God and determine that we are not gravely sinning, in which case we would jeopardize our eternal soul (as St. Paul repeatedly warns), then we have a high degree of "moral assurance" that we are in a good place spiritually with God and will be in every sense after we die, as long as we persevere in following Him, by His grace.




> I agree with you that double predestination is false.  That has nothing  to do with free will though.  Those who reject God are left in slavery to their sins.  God does not proactively make them into slaves of sin, they already are.  But I still wouldn't call that "free will".  Free will implies an ability, rather than merely a duty, to choose God.


I'm glad you believe that double predestination is false, it is another thing that separates you from Sola's false gospel. Those who reject God do it out of their own free will. We may not be able to choose God without His gift of grace, but we certainly do freely choose to sin. Adam and Eve wilfully chose to disobey God, and so do we. We can do not good without God, but we can certainly chose to be worse sinner than we currently are.




> I did not believe Miss Annie is a Catholic, and while I corrected her view, my real point in responding was to challenge Sola_Fide.  
> 
> I understand Sola_Fide's theological reasoning behind which he thinks Arminianism is a false gospel.  The thing is, when he judges their hearts, he acts like they actually understand the logical implications of their beliefs as much as he does.  Frankly, I'd agree that an Arminian who understood and agreed with Sola_Fide's logic with regards to what Arminianism is, and still accepted it, they would be unregenerate (Please don't nitpick my use of this word, I know what you believe it means and you know what I think it means.  I don't want to say "Damned" because that would imply they could not be regenerated at any future time, which isn't necessarily the case).  The thing is, most Arminians simply do not understand that.  They don't understand, for instance, that claiming Christ died for every person, without any "Efficient only for the elect" qualifier, logcially leads to universalism.  Most people who believe in unlimited atonement in that manner do not understand where their gospel logically leads.


Can we leave this Arminianism fetish alone once and for all? I honestly don't get why Calvinists are so hung up on constantly bashing another tiny minority within Christianity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Don't worry, my issues with your gospel have nothing to do with typos.

You see, this is the kind of thing I struggle with.  I don't want to come off as a jerk, but at the same time, I want to defend the truth, including the Biblical fact that those who reject the gospel and preach a false one are unsaved.  Ultimately, there's no way to say it without some calling you judgmental or mean.  I guess its something I just have to live with.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Assuming she is a Christian, she is only a Christian because she was chosen.
> 
> I'm only a Christian because I was chosen.
> 
> I certainly didn't have a choice in the matter.  If I did, I would have rejected God, as was my nature.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the doctrines of limited atonement or unconditional election.
> ...


Not sure it was God that woke you up.  I will pray for you.  To tell someone who is interested in Christ's salvation that they must be chosen is serious business.  
I DO fully understand the doctrines of TULIP.  They are ALL heresy, every single one.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am not talking about what is in his heart, I am talking about what he preaches.


What he says is generally (Note, not ALWAYS) accurate.  But I often (Again, not ALWAYS) disagree with how he says it.  Make of that what you will.




> Would Christ need to die again if He wanted to save every man? No, he would not. His sacrifice was enough to save every man if that had been His intent.


His death could have saved everyone, if he had chosen to bear everyone's sins.  But he chose not to. 

God isn't bound by time so this is a bit of a bizarre question.  In 2013, yes, I would say God "can't" save everyone (As it would be against his just nature), because Christ already died once, and did not take on the sins of the non-elect.  However, God is not bound by time the way we are.




> Can you prove Biblically that you know you are one of the Elect? No, you cannot. Only God has that knowledge. Only God can see the future, we cannot. As John Calvin said, "we are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect - that is for God alone, not for us, to do." For you to judge yourself as one of the Elect you are judging others as damned, which you have no right to do. You have no right to judge someone as saved or unsaved, that is God's job alone.


Calvin is half-wrong here.  While it is impossible to judge someone objectively to be reprobate, it is certainly possible to judge a person for whom Ephesians 2:8-9 applies to be regenerate elect.




> I'm glad you believe that double predestination is false, it is another thing that separates you from Sola's false gospel. Those who reject God do it out of their own free will. We may not be able to choose God without His gift of grace, but we certainly do freely choose to sin. Adam and Eve wilfully chose to disobey God, and so do we. We can do not good without God, but we can certainly chose to be worse sinner than we currently are.


I'd say the difference is Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were truly free.  Yes, God knew, and predestined, what would happen, but at the same time, they were not slaves to anything.  They actually had what could be called "Free will", although its clear God did ordain the Fall so that he could send his Son to save the elect, and as such to glorify himself.

We  are born slaves to sin, we don't really have "free will."

I don't believe that a belief in double predestination is a rejection of the gospel.  I believe it is a theological error, but not a rejection of the gospel.  1 Corinthians 15:1-4 explains essential doctrine, and exactly how predestination works is not in there.




> Can we leave this Arminianism fetish alone once and for all? I honestly don't get why Calvinists are so hung up on constantly bashing another tiny minority within Christianity.


I'm trying to get Sola_Fide to answer my questions.

----------


## phill4paul

> Don't worry, my issues with your gospel have nothing to do with typos.
> 
> You see, this is the kind of thing I struggle with.  I don't want to come off as a jerk, but at the same time, I want to defend the truth, including the Biblical fact that those who reject the gospel and preach a false one are unsaved.  Ultimately, there's no way to say it without some calling you judgmental or mean.  I guess its something I just have to live with.




  For myself. It's nice to be dissacociated of the burden of religion and specifically agrumentative Xtianity. I honestly laugh my ass off over yours and others religious wars on these forums and in life,

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not sure it was God that woke you up.  I will pray for you.  To tell someone who is interested in Christ's salvation that they must be chosen is serious business.  
> I DO fully understand the doctrines of TULIP.  They are ALL heresy, every single one.


OK, if you actually understand what those doctrines are, and reject all of them as heretical, you are the kind of consistent Arminian that Sola_Fide wrongly coinflates with all Arminians.  I think you need to learn the Biblical gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For myself. It's nice to be dissacociated of the burden of religion and specifically agrumentative Xtianity. I honestly laugh my ass off over yours and others religious wars.


Its not a war.  I reject the aggressive use of force.  Its a debate.

----------


## phill4paul

> Its not a war.  I reject the aggressive use of force.  Its a debate.


  Bull$#@!. I'm not an Xtian. Will I burn in hell?

----------


## TER

> Don't worry, my issues with your gospel have nothing to do with typos.
> 
> You see, this is the kind of thing I struggle with.  I don't want to come off as a jerk, but at the same time, I want to defend the truth, including the Biblical fact that those who reject the gospel and preach a false one are unsaved.  Ultimately, there's no way to say it without some calling you judgmental or mean.  I guess its something I just have to live with.


What you claim above is true.  But it is not the Sola truth there is.  That one statement does not describe the wonder and majesty and law of God.  There are many truths with regards to God, indeed, all truths are from God.  And the greatest laws are to love God and our neighbor.

----------


## TER

> I am well versed in Calvinism and fully aware of the dangers of the heresy as well.  i am NOT going to debate it because as you can see....... the debates NEVER accomplish anything.  
> I will say that the sovereignty of God will not and does not override the character of God.  
> Calvinism is a false doctrine that takes the patient, loving, long suffering character of God and turns him into a monster.  And I would NEVER want to stand in front of Jesus and tell him that I had the gumption to ever say that there was any kind of limitation on His atonement and what He did for humanity.  The thought of that makes me shudder.  
> When the bible says that God so loved THE WORLD....... it meant THE WORLD.  When it says WHOSOEVER, it meant WHOSOEVER.  The way that the scriptures are twisted to accompany this horrifying doctrine is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.


Excellent post!

----------


## TER

> For myself. It's nice to be dissacociated of the burden of religion and specifically agrumentative Xtianity. I honestly laugh my ass off over yours and others religious wars on these forums and in life,


. phill4paul, why is it you can't resist yourself an opportunity to blaspheme God and to bash the Christian faith. 
  You see, Christians debate such things because we want to save our souls.
  You would have to have one in order understand.

----------


## TER

> Bull$#@!. I'm not an Xtian. Will I burn in hell?


Maybe if you were just not 'Christian', but your anti-Christian attitude might get you there.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Paul said that even in his day, in the first century, that Satan was in the churches transforming himself into an angel of light to deceive people.  He said that the abomination of desolation, as he called it, would set himself up in the house of God and declare himself to be God.   Paul called this man the "man of lawlessness".  I believe the seat of the papacy is this antichrist.  The Pope has declared himself to be God on earth.


He said a lot of stuff, and totally perverted the simple message that Jesus gave.  Lemonade is made from lemons, except the imitation stuff is not.  Jesus came preaching the simple message of the kingdom of god, men came preaching and arguing the many facets of the imagination of what or who Jesus might be.  He was a man, if not the culmination of several.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As a person baptized Catholic, I am most proud of this Pope than any others I've been alive for.


He's got a really cool telescope...

Good spot too.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Let's say that Ron Paul dies, Karl Rove is blinded and sees a vision, now he understands and preaches about Ron and his place in the universe. SMH  _Saul/Paul/Karl_

----------


## TER

> Let's say that Ron Paul dies, Karl Rove is blinded and sees [Ron Paul], now he understands and preaches about Ron and his place in the universe. SMH  _Saul/Paul/Karl_


FIFY

----------


## VIDEODROME

Pope Francis seems okay.  I'd buy him a beer.

----------


## phill4paul

> . phill4paul, why is it you can't resist yourself an opportunity to blaspheme God and to bash the Christian faith. 
>   You see, Christians debate such things because we want to save our souls.
>   You would have to have one in order understand.





> Maybe if you were just not 'Christian', but your anti-Christian attitude might get you there.


  You tell me I blaspheme Gawd. Whose? You've seem to taken offence so, in your ego, it must be your gawd, Xtians have been debating forever who is correct in their understanding. Doesn't that simple fact, admitted by you, clear up some misunderstanding? 
  If you thin k I , as a non Cjhristian, am an ANTI-Cjhristian you don't understand me.

----------


## TER

> You tell me I blaspheme Gawd. Whose? You've seem to taken offence so, in your ego, it must be your gawd, Xtians have been debating forever who is correct in their understanding. Doesn't that simple fact, admitted by you, clear up some misunderstanding? 
>   If you thin k I , as a non Cjhristian, am an ANTI-Cjhristian you don't understand me.


Well, you are right on one thing.  I don't understand you.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, you are right on one thing.  I don't understand you.


  K.

----------


## fr33



----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You tell me I blaspheme Gawd. Whose? You've seem to taken offence so, in your ego, it must be your gawd, Xtians have been debating forever who is correct in their understanding. Doesn't that simple fact, admitted by you, clear up some misunderstanding? 
>   If you thin k I , as a non Cjhristian, am an ANTI-Cjhristian you don't understand me.


Yes.  It is a matter of perspective.  If you were talking to a Hindu or Muslim maybe it would be a different conversation, a different point of view.

I was there.  It's hard for a Christian to see things from another point of view.  You have to solidly believe your position in order to live by it.  whether there are any fallacies or inconsistencies is besides the point.

You can see this from the political world.  There's really no difference in the core of it, only in the speech or utterance of it. 

Each of the paradigms have their phrases and words that make them "technical", no different than a programmer or architect or any other field.  Terminology describes whole sets of thoughts.  Words are attached to those and then they understand one another, but no one else does.  They no longer have the patients to describe their thoughts to someone else who is not in their field.  They've already gone to great lengths to exact their terminology so that they can be terse.

Not everyone does this, I do except when I know that I'm not speaking to those in the know.

It's more important to impart ideas and exchange thoughts and contemplate those things that the other has to offer.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

I love the new Pope.

----------


## otherone

> He said a lot of stuff, and totally perverted the simple message that Jesus gave.  Lemonade is made from lemons, except the imitation stuff is not.  Jesus came preaching the simple message of the kingdom of god, men came preaching and arguing the many facets of the imagination of what or who Jesus might be.  He was a man, if not the culmination of several.


Speaking of Paul specifically, was there any prophecies about him in the old testament?  Where does he get his biblical cred to be the single greatest source of Christian doctrine?

----------


## PSYOP

Heaven, to me, is just an allegory for something much greater and much more wonderful. Bill Hicks put it best: 

“The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you  choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our  minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has  thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud  and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long  time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?"  And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say,  "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Only God knows who is and is not damned to Hell.
> 
> I do judge that those who preach false gospels are unregenerate, as per Galatians 1:8.  Paul says "Let them be eternally condemned" (With an implied "Unless they repent") and *I completely agree with Paul.*


I #StandWithJesus.




> A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Heaven, to me, is just an allegory for something much greater and much more wonderful. Bill Hicks put it best: 
> 
> “The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you  choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our  minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has  thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud  and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long  time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?"  And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say,  "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride."


Auto Tuned...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bull$#@!. I'm not an Xtian. Will I burn in hell?


I don't know, because I don't know if God will bring you into the fold before you die or not. 

If you die not being a Christian, than yes.  

How you think believing that is "Supporting aggressive force" I don't know, unless you view the NAP as applying to God, which is insane.




> What you claim above is true.  But it is not the Sola truth there is.  That one statement does not describe the wonder and majesty and law of God.  There are many truths with regards to God, indeed, all truths are from God.  And the greatest laws are to love God and our neighbor.


I'm not denying the extreme importance of loving God or one's neighbor.  But I'm calling the idea that this is what saves, rather than Christ's atonement,  to be blasphemous.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let's say that Ron Paul dies, Karl Rove is blinded and sees a vision, now he understands and preaches about Ron and his place in the universe. SMH  _Saul/Paul/Karl_


Good analogy...I've never understood those who put Paul's words ahead of those that came directly from Jesus Christ, Himself.

----------


## shane77m

What is more loving? 

If you believe that someone is in error, to tell them they are in error and hope to prevent the negative consequences they will incur? 

Or if you believe someone is in error, to let them continue on their way to receive the negative consequences they will incur?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What is more loving? 
> 
> If you believe that someone is in error, to tell them they are in error and hope to prevent the negative consequences they will incur? 
> 
> Or if you believe someone is in error, to let them continue on their way to receive the negative consequences they will incur?


Obviously, it is more loving to (gently) tell them they are in error and hope they can correct the circumstances.  Provided, of course, that there is *general consensus* that the current path is, in fact, wrong.

----------


## shane77m

> Obviously, it is more loving to (gently) tell them they are in error and hope they can correct the circumstances.  Provided, of course, that there is *general consensus* that the current path is, in fact, wrong.


The general consensus can be contradictory to what a person believes the truth to be. 

If I believe that Christianity is the truth and I am in a room full of Muslims, the truth to me would still be Christianity. To me, Islam would be the error. I would feel obligated if I loved them, to explain to them their error. If they were true to their religion, I would expect them to do the same to me. The "truth" would have to be determined by the individual and not the general consensus.

To me though, Christianity will always be truth. Granted, the person explaining their truth can try to do it in a manner that doesn't seem harsh. Sometimes though, the truth hurts.

----------


## Deborah K

> What is completely missing from this picture?  The man's sin.  The man is guilty of sin before God, and you Clyde are guilty before God.


We are ALL guilty of sin before God, including believers.  Not sure I get your point here.

----------


## TER

> Granted, the person explaining their truth can try to do it in a manner that doesn't seem harsh. Sometimes though, the truth hurts.


The problem is when the person teaching '_their truth_' is not in fact teaching '_the_' truth.  What one person _thinks_ is the truth is not greater then what the Body of Christ has revealed to _be_ the truth by the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Wrong.  A  man can only come to God in repentance if he HAS been saved.  Repentance is a gift that God gives His elect.


I've known many repentant Catholics, I was once one, who go to weekly confession.  I can not judge their heart or intention.  These are people who profess and love Jesus Christ and it shows in the fruit of their lives, lived out for Him.

----------


## erowe1

> Speaking of Paul specifically, was there any prophecies about him in the old testament?  Where does he get his biblical cred to be the single greatest source of Christian doctrine?


He's the earliest datable source we have for the teachings of the apostles.

----------


## shane77m

> The problem is when the person teaching '_their truth_' is not in fact teaching '_the_' truth.  What one person _thinks_ is the truth is not greater then what the Body of Christ has revealed to _be_ the truth by the Holy Spirit.


In what I am trying to get across, what is really the truth doesn't matter. What I am saying is that if someone believes something to be true, then that person should tell those that they believe are in error that they are in error. Sometimes what a person believes to be the truth is not popular nor does it make people feel good about themselves.

----------


## TER

> Speaking of Paul specifically, was there any prophecies about him in the old testament?  Where does he get his biblical cred to be the single greatest source of Christian doctrine?





> He's the earliest datable source we have for the teachings of the apostles.


In addition to what erowe said, as St. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews, St. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Jews and the Gentiles (that is, all people) becoming united as one under God.

----------


## TER

> In what I am trying to get across, what is really the truth doesn't matter. What I am saying is that if someone believes something to be true, then that person should tell those that they believe are in error that they are in error. Sometimes what a person believes to be the truth is not popular nor does it make people feel good about themselves.


And what I am trying to get across is that it is better not to speak then to speak a lie (no matter what your intentions).

----------


## erowe1

> He said a lot of stuff, and totally perverted the simple message that Jesus gave.  Lemonade is made from lemons, except the imitation stuff is not.  Jesus came preaching the simple message of the kingdom of god, men came preaching and arguing the many facets of the imagination of what or who Jesus might be.  He was a man, if not the culmination of several.


More important than any of that is that he died on the cross for our sins and rose again.

This is not just some extraneous idea tacked onto Jesus. This is the central point from which everything else about him is defined. If anybody is a seeker who wants to understand who Jesus was or is, then they can't possibly do that while ignoring that most important thing about him.

----------


## TER

> He said a lot of stuff, and totally perverted the simple message that Jesus gave.  Lemonade is made from lemons, except the imitation stuff is not.  Jesus came preaching the simple message of the kingdom of god, men came preaching and arguing the many facets of the imagination of what or who Jesus might be.  He was a man, if not the culmination of several.


Except Clyde, Jesus did not leave them unassisted but allowed the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete and Comforter, to come down and lead them to all truths.  St. Paul on earth was a man filled with the Holy Spirit, and he converted entire nations by such holiness.  He did not contradict the teachings of Christ, but by God Himself dwelling in him, filled his apostolic charge by spreading Christ's Gospel.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> In what I am trying to get across, what is really the truth doesn't matter. What I am saying is that if someone believes something to be true, then that person should tell those that they believe are in error that they are in error. Sometimes what a person believes to be the truth is not popular nor does it make people feel good about themselves.


When someone comes to some revelation in their life, they think they have found "the" truth, but what they have found is "some" truth for them.  

I'm driving down the road and I realize that I passed up a turn I need to make to get to my destination, so I turn around and make the turn.  That turn won't work for someone that has a different destination or that is on a different path.  Now, we can argue about the destination AND the path.  "You should go there", but you aren't doing that so I'll correct you.  "You seem to be headed there", but your on the "wrong" path, from my point of view.

Division comes from short sidedness and/or blind sidedness (blinders keep you from seeing peripherally).  And that is a good thing, for the controllers.

We don't know the actual destination of ourselves or anyone else.  We think we know, we think we strive for something (and we do), but the end is actually unknown.  Maybe we are all headed to the same place, but can't see it because we each have a different path from a different starting point.

----------


## shane77m

I will say though that whatever I believe to be truth on spiritual matters won't keep me from working towards liberty with those I don't agree with. Sometimes I get the feeling that atheists on this board would rather not work with the Christians but I have no problem working with the atheists. At least as long as they don't call for me to violate my convictions.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I will say though that whatever I believe to be truth on spiritual matters won't keep me from working towards liberty with those I don't agree with. Sometimes I get the feeling that atheists on this board would rather not work with the Christians but I have no problem working with the atheists. At least as long as they don't call for me to violate my convictions.


I think that the argument is not that we shouldn't work together.  But, rather, that where we think we get our common morals or rights from.

I'm not an atheist so I'll tread lightly when I say, it seems that the atheists are somewhat offended when religious people claim that there is no "rights" or "morals" without a god.  Yet, they share the same or similar ideals about rights and morals in their particular, just not from whence they originate.

I don't see the problem with searching for common ground, especially when that ground is so important.

----------


## Snew

wow, way to twist the pope's words....

----------


## Deborah K

> I will say though that whatever I believe to be truth on spiritual matters won't keep me from working towards liberty with those I don't agree with. Sometimes *I get the feeling that atheists on this board would rather not work with the Christians*but I have no problem working with the atheists. At least as long as they don't call for me to violate my convictions.


In which case, why be a member of a forum that bears the name of a devout Christian?  At times, I think the self-righteous atheists ( known by their blatant disrespect of others' beliefs) would do well to remember that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I #StandWithJesus.


I never said we shouldn't love everyone.  Nor has anyone else in this thread.




> Good analogy...I've never understood those who put Paul's words ahead of those that came directly from Jesus Christ, Himself.


Jesus also said that his gospel would destroy families, yet he still commanded it be preached.

Again, I'm not putting Paul over Christ.  Paul taught the same message as Christ.



> We are ALL guilty of sin before God, including believers.  Not sure I get your point here.


Believers have had their sins paid for.



> I will say though that whatever I believe to be truth on spiritual matters won't keep me from working towards liberty with those I don't agree with. Sometimes I get the feeling that atheists on this board would rather not work with the Christians but I have no problem working with the atheists. At least as long as they don't call for me to violate my convictions.





> I think that the argument is not that we shouldn't work together.  But, rather, that where we think we get our common morals or rights from.
> 
> I'm not an atheist so I'll tread lightly when I say, it seems that the atheists are somewhat offended when religious people claim that there is no "rights" or "morals" without a god.  Yet, they share the same or similar ideals about rights and morals in their particular, just not from whence they originate.
> 
> I don't see the problem with searching for common ground, especially when that ground is so important.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Cajun- Jesus saying we should love everyone, even the unbelievers, and Paul saying that those who preach a false gospel are on the way to eternal condemnation are not contradictory.

@Deborah K- The difference is Christ died for the sins of the believing.

As for atheists and morality, I agree that atheists may have morals (At least as far as the world is concerned) but I don't think they have any philosophical consistency through which to claim those morals are in fact true.  I'd argue an atheist who holds to absolute morality is inconsistent.

----------


## Deborah K

> @Deborah K- The difference is Christ died for the sins of the believing.


I know that.  But SF's original comment was about a non-believer and _his_ sin - what difference does it make?   Why point out a non believer's sin, when we're all sinners, and his sin is precluded by his lack of faith anyway?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know that.  But SF's original comment was about a non-believer and _his_ sin - what difference does it make?   Why point out a non believer's sin, when we're all sinners, and his sin is precluded by his lack of faith anyway?


The argument was that God would let a good person into Heaven.  That's what Sola_Fide was refuting.

Nobody gets into heaven because of works.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Normally, I wouldn't post something so divisive, but divisiveness is already present in this thread. Therefore, consider:


> *
> CALVINISM IS UNBIBLICAL*
> But consider what this means and whether this is biblical :
> 
>  1. No truly free will (denied by experience, and by the Gospel  commands to repent, reform, obey the commandments, perform works of  charity, and persevere to the end).
>  2. Thus no merit or demerit (denied by the whole Bible which  testifies to the rewards and punishments God will apportion to all men  according to their deeds, e.g. Matt 16:27; Rom 2:5-10; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev  22:11-12; etc).
>  3. God desires salvation only for the elect. (Denied by 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11; etc).
>  4. Christ died only for the elect. (Denied by John 3:16-17; 4:42; 1  John 2:2; 4:9-14; Rom 5:6,18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:6; 4:10; etc).
>  5. God provides grace only to the elect. (Denied by Titus 2:11; John 1:9,16; Rom 2:4; etc).
> ...


http://www.alwayscatholic.com/?page_id=7362

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Normally, I wouldn't post something so divisive, but divisiveness is already present in this thread. Therefore, consider:http://www.alwayscatholic.com/?page_id=7362





> 1. No truly free will (denied by experience, and by the Gospel commands to repent, reform, obey the commandments, perform works of charity, and persevere to the end).


I'll respond to all of these when I have the time.  The first one is based on a logical fallacy.

Commands do not imply ability.  When God says "repent and believe", the command itself says nothing about the ability of man to perform the command.  In fact, when the Bible talks about man's abilities, it says that he CANNOT submit to God's commands.

----------


## Deborah K

> The argument was that God would let a good person into Heaven.  That's what Sola_Fide was refuting.
> 
> Nobody gets into heaven because of works.


This response doesn't answer my question as to why SF brought up a non-believer's sin.  Sola was specifically pointing out a non-believer's sin. Not getting into heaven because of works is irrelevant to my question to SF.  I'd like him to answer my question, because if we're going to be persnickety in these threads, then we need to at least be consistent.  And, in my opinion, his judgmental response about Clyde's sinfulness, and the sinfulness of Clyde's example, was a place he shouldn't have even gone, when lack of faith already precludes a person's sinfulness.  I imagine when a non-believer faces the Almighty, he'll have THAT to contend with and nothing else since he never believed he would be accountable for his sins in the first place.  Not to mention, as I stated before, we're all sinners, and those who insist on labeling others with [their] sins are being hypocrites.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This response doesn't answer my question as to why SF brought up a non-believer's sin.  Sola was specifically pointing out a non-believer's sin. Not getting into heaven because of works is irrelevant to my question to SF.  I'd like him to answer my question, because if we're going to be persnickety in these threads, then we need to at least be consistent.  And, in my opinion, his judgmental response about Clyde's sinfulness, and the sinfulness of Clyde's example, was a place he shouldn't have even gone, when lack of faith already precludes a person's sinfulness.  I imagine when a non-believer faces the Almighty, he'll have THAT to contend with and nothing else since he never believed he would be accountable for his sins in the first place.  Not to mention, as I stated before, we're all sinners, and those who insist on labeling others with [their] sins are being hypocrites.


Huh?  Man's unbelief in no way absolves him of the responsibility for his sin.  Clyde gave a description of his relationship to God where the moral question of his sin before God was absent...and that's not Biblical.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll respond to all of these when I have the time.  The first one is based on a logical fallacy.
> 
> Commands do not imply ability.  When God says "repent and believe", the command itself says nothing about the ability of man to perform the command.  In fact, when the Bible talks about man's abilities, it says that he CANNOT submit to God's commands.


I'm not interested in your response to all of those, quite frankly.  IMO, your idea of God, Jesus, and The Bible are perverted.   (But you're not irredeemable, and you could repent )

There, I said it.  

Now I vowed to leave this thread last night but I got caught up again after having asked a question.  I'm going now.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not interested in your response to all of those, quite frankly.  IMO, your idea of God, Jesus, and The Bible are perverted.   (But you're not irredeemable, and you could repent )
> 
> There, I said it.  
> 
> Now I vowed to leave this thread last night but I got caught up again after having asked a question.  I'm going now.


Your version of God is not Biblical, it's an idol.  You need to repent and believe the gospel.  A god who is not sovereign over every molecule of existence, and a god who fails to save who he wants to, is not the God of the Bible.

If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have posted it.

----------


## shane77m

“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.” 

Seems like it would have just been easier for him to say: 



> John14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
> John14


And just let the chips fall where they may. The same could be said of several protestant "pastors" I have heard speak as well.

----------


## Deborah K

> Huh?  Man's unbelief in no way absolves him of the responsibility for his sin.  Clyde gave a description of his relationship to God where the moral question of his sin before God was absent...and that's not Biblical.


You misunderstand my point.  Nowhere did I state his unbelief absolves him.  I stated his sins are irrelevant to his unbelief as he stands before God, in my opinion of course.   I might change my mind if you can point me to verses that specifically state how God will treat non-believers *and* their sins.

----------


## shane77m

Here is a link to where the quote came from and not the news story.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pop...lian-newspaper

There is something else in here that I find troubling. It appears that what he is saying is close to the dual covenant heresy. I could just be misunderstanding him. 




> You also ask me, in conclusion of your first article, what we should say to our Jewish brothers about the promise made to them by God: has it all come to nothing? Believe me, this is a question that challenges us radically as Christians, because, with the help of God, especially since Vatican Council II, we have rediscovered that the Jewish people are still for us the holy root from which Jesus germinated. In the friendship I cultivated in the course of all these years with Jewish brothers in Argentina, often in prayer I also questioned God, especially when my mind went to the memory of the terrible experience of the Shoa. What I can say to you, with the Apostle Paul, is that God’s fidelity to the close covenant with Israel never failed and that, through the terrible trials of these centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we shall never be sufficiently grateful to them as Church, but also as humanity. *They, then, precisely by persevering in the faith of the God of the Covenant, called all, also us Christians, to the fact that we are always waiting, as pilgrims, for the Lord’s return and, therefore, that we must always be open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already attained.*
> 
> So I come to the three questions you put to me in the article of August 7. It seems to me that, in the first two, what is in your heart is to understand the attitude of the Church to those who don’t share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your version of God is not Biblical, it's an idol.  You need to repent and believe the gospel.  A god who is not sovereign over every molecule of existence, and a god who fails to save who he wants to, is not the God of the Bible.
> 
> If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have posted it.


How would you define sovereignty?

Do you believe infralapsarians reject the gospel?  




> Normally, I wouldn't post something so divisive, but divisiveness is already present in this thread. Therefore, consider:http://www.alwayscatholic.com/?page_id=7362


I'll look at these when I get a chance, but I should tell you that most Calvinists would agree with you that #7 is not Biblical.  I'm pretty sure Sola_Fide would argue with you on #7, as would James White and any other supralapsarian Calvinist.  But most Calvinists are infralapsarian and do not believe in double predestination.




> Originally Posted by *Sola_Fide*Huh?  Man's unbelief in no way absolves him of the responsibility for his sin.  Clyde gave a description of his relationship to God where the moral question of his sin before God was absent...and that's not Biblical.


OK, I had someone on another forum try to tell me that duty-faith was "Works salvation" (And he promptly told me that he believed I was not saved because I defended it.)  How would you respond to such a person?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your version of God is not Biblical, it's an idol.  You need to repent and believe the gospel.  A god who is not sovereign over every molecule of existence, and a god who fails to save who he wants to, is not the God of the Bible.
> 
> If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have posted it.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever asked her what she actually believes?  Keep in mind that not every catholic necessarily understands and agrees with Romanist teaching.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

ITT: People judging others and saying they will go to hell, implying that they definitively have the answers to these questions humanity has been asking for thousands of years.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Suppose we actually make to Heaven.  How is it arranged that all of us get along in Heaven between the Catholics and Christians?

----------


## Theocrat

//

----------


## Deborah K

> Suppose we actually make to Heaven.  How is it arranged that all of us get along in Heaven between the Catholics and Christians?


Catholics are Christians.    They are the original Christian religion.  All other Christian religions are referred to as Protestant, derived from 'protest' that happened prior to the schism. All protestant religions spawned from Catholicism, with maybe the exception of the Orthodox church, not sure on its history.  TER can help with that since he's orthodox.

Anyway, I don't really believe that in heaven we're all collected together at some physical destination.  I think heaven is another dimension, and I think it's paradise.

----------


## eduardo89

> Catholics are Christians.    They are the original Christian religion.  All other Christian religions are referred to as Protestant, derived from 'protest' that happened prior to the schism. All protestant religions spawned from Catholicism, with maybe the exception of the Orthodox church, not sure on its history.  TER can help with that since he's orthodox.
> 
> Anyway, I don't really believe that in heaven we're all collected together at some physical destination.  I think heaven is another dimension, and I think it's paradise.


The Catholic Church is the original Church. From it spawned the Oriental Orthodox Churches which split in during the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church in 1054. Protestants began splitting from the Church in the 1500s. There are also countless other Christian religious communities that have split off from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since then and, of course, the tens of thousands of different Protestant communities which have formed since the Deformation.

----------


## TER

> The Catholic Church is the original Church. From it spawned the Oriental Orthodox Churches which split in during the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church in 1054. Protestants began splitting from the Church in the 1500s. There are also countless other Christian religious communities that have split off from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since then and, of course, the tens of thousands of different Protestant communities which have formed since the Deformation.


Actually, the Church was one before the Great Schism (not including the Oriental Orthodox which split from the Undivided Church in 451.  It was Rome which excommunicated Constantinople and then Constantinople and the remaining Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria excommunicated Rome. It wasn't that the Eastern Church split from the Church, but the Roman Patriarchate which split from the rest of Christendom.

----------


## Theocrat

I would ask Pope Francis this question: if the only thing that we have to do is obey our consciences, that we may receive forgiveness from God, then what was the purpose of Jesus Christ coming down to Earth to deliver our human consciences in this way:




> But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, *how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?* And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance [Hebrews 9:11-15; bold emphasis mine].


Any of you who would agree with the Pope's sentiments in the article is welcomed to answer my question, too.

----------


## DGambler

> Suppose we actually make to Heaven.  How is it arranged that all of us get along in Heaven between the Catholics and Christians?


I'm a father, god is our father.... I tend to think that we humans have complicated matters.... Would I send my child to his room for eternity for disobeying me?  No.  I hope that God is more lenient and that there is a purgatory or a whole lot of people are going to hell. What people are pushing in here is quite scary IMO.  Have love in your heart and treat your fellow man with respect should be enough.

Maybe that's all my little brain can comprehend, the need to bury oneself in theology to get to heaven can't be right.

----------

