I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[guanophore]

Why do you ignore these scriptures?

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

I have read sandusky’s disposing of most of these, but this one I am very curious about.

 

[De_Maria]

Thanks for supporting me in this.

What cazayoux has illustrated is Trent’s position—you still have a sin-debt to pay.

Its from Scripture Sandusky,
Romans 8:12
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. *13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. *

Contrast Trent’s position with God’s position—He’s forgiven all of the believer’s transgression, “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Col 2:13-14).

You have to read the whole epistle. Next Chapter:
*24Knowing that of the Lord y**e shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. ***

• 25But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.*

Salvation is not a basketball in which windows get broken.

But your sins do offend God. Therefore it is like a basketball game with its rules. And the Referee is God. If you don’t follow His rules, He is offended and you are penalized:

Col 3
5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

It’s the forgiveness of sins, and the establishment of peace between the rebellious sinner, and His God, and the Good News is that the hostilities are over forever between him and His God. Read the verses above again (cf Rom 5:10).

What you need to do is read Scripture in context without favoring one passage and ignoring many others. It is clear that if we sin after having been given the truth, we offend God and will be cut off:
Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Then, do you think that you are still saved even when you have sins and don’t repent?

I was reading this passage today, and wondering about that:

2 Cor 12:21
21 I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced.

Why would Paul mourn? If they are saved, and they are elected and will persevere, why all the tears?

If they will be saved whether they repent or not, why mourn?

 

[benedictus2]

sandusky4271837:

Since God has ordained that faith must come through the hearing of the Gospel it’s an easy progression to the truth that He will ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He intends to save.

My God is powerful enough to ensure that the hearing of the Gospel by the elect occurs, and He has no need of loopholes and clauses, such as invincible ignorance; ISTM, yours doesn’t.

2nd Reply to your above post…

I have been mulling this overnight and I find your line belief even more terrifying because it can actually be used to advocate abortion and infanticide and also negates free will.

Abortion and Infanticide.

Since a) infants and NON-RFIs get to heaven by grace, and since
b) the only way to get to heaven for those RFIs is by confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and since
d) those whom God wishes to save by hearing the Gospel has already been determined prior to conception; and since
e) the most important thing is to get to heaven because that is for eternity,
Then:
It stands to reason that it is better to abort babies and kill infants (especially those conceived and born outside of “Christian” families, because we can then ensure that these will get to heaven. And since eternity matters supremely, this is actually the decent thing to do for a “Christian” concerned with the salvation of mankind.

Free – will

• Since God has determined from the beginning who will be saved (He will ensure that those whom He wishes to share His life with will hear this word)
• then there is no such thing as free will for your choice will not have any bearing on eternal life since that was all pre-ordained even before you were conceived.

Therefore, we cannot blame Adam for the fall (nor the Devil for tempting Adam.) because really, that was all part of the plan.

And God is no more than the impersonal god in this line from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam

“'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.”

 

[benedictus2]

It’s a list of what I have in Christ, and what you don’t have in your church—what we’ve been discussing; the best thing to do is to believe it.

But, but, but. Your church is not Christ’s Church (at least that is what I’ve gathered by your refusal to say it is) so how do you know you even have Christ?

---

---

---

---

 

[benedictus2]

It’s a list of what I have in Christ, and what you don’t have in your church—what we’ve been discussing; the best thing to do is to believe it.

Matthew 7:20-21
20 So by their fruits you will know them. 21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Such a question erroneously presupposes that everything we have received from the Apostles is in writing, and also that all of the inspired-inerrant writing was done by an Apostle.

The apostles never taught the IC. That’s why you don’t have writings about it from them, and yes, only the writers of Scripture were inspired. The CC teaches that as well.

guanophore:

Indeed, it is clear that the NT was produced 100% from Catholic Sacred Tradition, and that it was defined by that same Tradition. The same source of the development of the doctrines of the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the immaculate conception.

It’s primarily Holy Mother Church with God in an ancillary role, eh?

guanophore:

None of these doctrines of the faith are matters of “proof” they are articles of faith.

ISTM, the main reason they’re not matters of proof, is because you have no proof.

guanophore:

This is the faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

But you can’t prove that either because that doctrine is not a “matter of proof.”

guanophore:

Not directly, but it was their direct teaching that made it recognizable from the other 400+ writings floating about at the time.

That’s the Protestant position—as men “recognized” the writings as Scripture they were incorporated into the canon.

guanophore:

You are misunderstanding the canon. What the Church is stating is that, though our sins are blotted out, sometimes there remains the temporal consequences of them, and that it is incumbent upon us, as much as it is in our power, to redress these, and make reparation for the harm that our actions have caused.

I’m not misunderstanding the canon, the statements of the canon are “bogus,” IMO.

Trent is saying the RC’s sins are “blotted out” in one sense, but his sins are not “blotted out” in another sense.

But I suppose that’s not a “matter of proof,” but a “matter of faith.”

The Lord, however, says they’re completely blotted out—that’s both a matter of proof, and a matter of faith, but that’s Biblical Christianity.

guanophore:

Perhaps you can explain, then, how it was that God was clear to David that he was forgiven, but that he would still have to pay a temporal consequence?

Or, try this one. Supposing a teenage girl gets out of hand with her boyfriend, and finds herself pregnant. She confesses her sin, and receives His forgiveness. However, she does not want to have to live with the effects of the pregancy. Since her sin is blotted out, and the temporal consequences, can she just abort the baby with impunity?

All actions have consequences, guanophore, even good ones.

David was under the law, and the law had consequences for disobedience. The consequence prescribed by the law for David’s sin was death; however, God, who is merciful, commuted that sentence and brought havoc to David’s house instead; and that’s a good consequence of David’s sin—the promise of messiah coming through Judah through David was fulfilled. Again, God proves that He’s faithful to His promises, even when we are not faithful to Him (2 Tim 2:10-13).

(When He says sins are blotted, they are completely blotted out; unlike Trent who says they are “blotted out” in one sense, but not in another sense. ).

So we see again the truth that no matter what men may do, they cannot thwart God’s plan.

guanophore:

I think you might be adding a little something to the scripture here. There is no place in scripture that says “debt pertaining to them” is necessarily blotted out with the sin.

And, as you said earlier, neither is there any place in scripture that says “Mary was immaculately conceived,” but, then again, yours is a “matter of faith,” and not proof.

Nevertheless, the New Covenant teaching is that in Christ the believer has the complete forgiveness of sins, because God promises that He won’t remember their sins; so based upon your argument, and Trent’s statement, I’m led to two possible conclusions: 1) God must be punishing the true believer for sins that He doesn’t recollect; 2) Catholics must not be true believers.

I’m certain you’ll offer some alternative possiblities to those two. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

The apostles never taught the IC. That’s why you don’t have writings about it from them, and yes, only the writers of Scripture were inspired. The CC teaches that as well.

Do you also think they did not teach the Trinity, or the hypostatic union, since we don’t have that in writing from them either?

It’s primarily Holy Mother Church with God in an ancillary role, eh?

Jesus does not separate Himself from His Body. He did not create a “headless” body.

ISTM, the main reason they’re not matters of proof, is because you have no proof.

No, personally, I don’t. I accept the it as articles of faith. I find that “proof” is rather thin. I was having a chat with a scientist the other day about the Ark of the Covenant, and he said “and they know this existed because…”? I receive that it existed by faith, not because I have any proof.

But you can’t prove that either because that doctrine is not a “matter of proof.”

True.

That’s the Protestant position—as men “recognized” the writings as Scripture they were incorporated into the canon.

The reason they were recognizable is because they were consistent with the Apostolic Teaching which had been handed down and faithfully preserved.

I’m not misunderstanding the canon, the statements of the canon are “bogus,” IMO.

Then you are willfully misconstruing them as a result of your disrespect?

Trent is saying the RC’s sins are “blotted out” in one sense, but his sins are not “blotted out” in another sense.

No, it is saying that the sins are blotted out, but that does not necessarily mean the consequences of them are.

But I suppose that’s not a “matter of proof,” but a “matter of faith.”

Of course!

The Lord, however, says they’re completely blotted out—that’s both a matter of proof, and a matter of faith, but that’s Biblical Christianity.

It is, and it is Catholic. Our sins are blotted out, and we are white as snow. We have washed our robes in the blood of the lamb, and have been made righteous in His sight.

All actions have consequences, guanophore, even good ones.

Absolutely! I was thinking the same thing when I wrote that. I am glad we can agree on that point. Do you not agree that the consequences of sins still remain, after the sins are forgiven?

David was under the law, and the law had consequences for disobedience. The consequence prescribed by the law for David’s sin was death; however, God, who is merciful, commuted that sentence and brought havoc to David’s house instead; and that’s a good consequence of David’s sin—the promise of messiah coming through Judah through David was fulfilled. Again, God proves that He’s faithful to His promises, even when we are not faithful to Him (2 Tim 2:10-13).

God communted his sentence, but still required death? Why did he lose his child?

Actually, the sentence of havoc was a result of killing Uriah with the sword, which was a separat sin. The payment of his firstborn was a consequence of his adultery.

(When He says sins are blotted, they are completely blotted out; unlike Trent who says they are “blotted out” in one sense, but not in another sense. ).

Well, we read it differently.

So we see again the truth that no matter what men may do, they cannot thwart God’s plan.

Could you please explain how it is that God desires for all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but that not all men are saved?

And, as you said earlier, neither is there any place in scripture that says “Mary was immaculately conceived,” but, then again, yours is a “matter of faith,” and not proof.

And that we understand what we read in scripture. To us, "full of grace’ means that there is no room for sin.

Nevertheless, the New Covenant teaching is that in Christ the believer has the complete forgiveness of sins, because God promises that He won’t remember their sins; so based upon your argument, and Trent’s statement, I’m led to two possible conclusions: 1) God must be punishing the true believer for sins that He doesn’t recollect; 2) Catholics must not be true believers.

Both based on a misunderstand of the canon you are reading. Clearly, God sometimes chooses not to put away the consequences of our sins, as He forgave David for the sin of adultery, but still claimed the life of the child in reparation.

I’m certain you’ll offer some alternative possiblities to those two. :tiphat:

No, I am content to accept that you wish to willfully misconstrue the meaning of the canon.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Do you also think they did not teach the Trinity, or the hypostatic union, since we don’t have that in writing from them either?

What do you believe to be the source of those teachings, whole cloth?

guanophore:

I receive that it existed by faith, not because I have any proof.

Biblical Christianity is based upon “proof,” but it seems, according to you, that Catholicism is not based upon proof; by your statements, I can only conclude that Catholicism is not Christian.

guanophore:

The reason they were recognizable is because they were consistent with the Apostolic Teaching which had been handed down and faithfully preserved.

That’s very Protestant of you!

guanophore:

Then you are willfully misconstruing them as a result of your disrespect?

I’ve not misconstrued anything; Trent says you are forgiven the debt of sin in one sense, but you are not forgiven the debt of sin in another sense—how is that “misconstruing” Trent?

guanophore:

It is, and it is Catholic. Our sins are blotted out, and we are white as snow. We have washed our robes in the blood of the lamb, and have been made righteous in His sight.

Your sins are “blotted out” only in “one sense,” therefore, they’re not “blotted out” in the complete “Biblical sense.”

guanophore:

Do you not agree that the consequences of sins still remain, after the sins are forgiven?

Consequence certainly; debt no.

guanophore:

God communted his sentence, but still required death? Why did he lose his child?

You’re making no sense, guanophore.

The penalty for adultery was not if you commit adultery, the child that comes from that adultery dies, the penalty for adultery was if you commit adultery, YOU DIE.

Clearly David didn’t die.

guanophore:

Actually, the sentence of havoc was a result of killing Uriah with the sword, which was a separat sin.

You’re still making no sense, guanophore.

The penalty for muder was not if you commit murder, your newborn infant will die, the penalty for murder was if you commit murder, YOU DIE.

Clearly David didn’t die.

guanophore:

Well, we read it differently.

An understatement.

guanophore:

Could you please explain how it is that God desires for all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but that not all men are saved?

Simply—because, God doesn’t save all men.

guanophore:

And that we understand what we read in scripture. To us, "full of grace’ means that there is no room for sin.

Not even the Greek says, “full of grace,” and that word is used only one other time in the NT, and that pertaining to the believer (Eph 1:6); therefore, carrying the basis of your argument for Mary, a Greek word (charitoō), over to the believer, neither is there room in the believer for sin.

guanophore:

Both based on a misunderstand of the canon you are reading. Clearly, God sometimes chooses not to put away the consequences of our sins, as He forgave David for the sin of adultery, but still claimed the life of the child in reparation.

You’re talking consequences, me and Trent are talking sin-debt.

guanophore:

No, I am content to accept that you wish to willfully misconstrue the meaning of the canon.

I’ve not misconstrued the canon, I’m comparing it to scripture. The canon “misses the mark.”

 

[guanophore]

What do you believe to be the source of those teachings, whole cloth?

Yes. Since the Source is Christ, and He is the Whole Cloth.

I believe He gave the Apostles everything:

Mark 4:34
“he explained everything in private to his disciples”

And that the Divine Deposit of faith was complete:

Jude 3
“…the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

I will concede that it was not immediately apparent how the cloth needed to be draped.

Biblical Christianity is based upon “proof,”

I am glad we agree on this. I am very weary right now with arguments from a fundamentalist member here who seems to believe that it should be.

but it seems, according to you, that Catholicism is not based upon proof; by your statements, I can only conclude that Catholicism is not Christian.

I find plenty of evidence for Catholicism, but the evidence is the result of faith, and not the source of it. I think you concluded that Catholicism was not Christian long before you met me, or read any of my statements.

I’ve not misconstrued anything; Trent says you are forgiven the debt of sin in one sense, but you are not forgiven the debt of sin in another sense—how is that “misconstruing” Trent?

Clearly you either do not understand what the Council was teaching, or just refuse to accept it. It is ok, so also did your forefathers in the faith.

Your sins are “blotted out” only in “one sense,” therefore, they’re not “blotted out” in the complete “Biblical sense.”

We read it differently.

I have read that you do not beleive that a Christian can sin with impunity. Therefore, it is strange to me that you cannot recognize that there are temporal consequences for sin.

Consequence certainly; debt no.

Do you think that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions? Perhasp responsibility would be a better word, but since sin takes out, it creates debt.

You’re making no sense, guanophore.

I believe that.

“Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor 2:14

Although through reading you posts, I can tell that you are a very spiritual man, it is clear that you are taking a carnal approach to Catholic teaching. You approach it with a deep ingrained prejudice, so it makes it very difficult for you to comprehend.

The penalty for adultery was not if you commit adultery, the child that comes from that adultery dies, the penalty for adultery was if you commit adultery, YOU DIE.

Clearly David didn’t die.

You’re still making no sense, guanophore.

Why do you think that David lost his child?

The penalty for muder was not if you commit murder, your newborn infant will die, the penalty for murder was if you commit murder, YOU DIE.

Clearly David didn’t die.

Because his sin was remitted, along with it’s penalty. The temporal consequences remained, however.

Simply—because, God doesn’t save all men.

Right, so why does the (name removed by moderator)sired - inerrant word say that He wants them all to be saved?

Not even the Greek says, “full of grace,” and that word is used only one other time in the NT, and that pertaining to the believer (Eph 1:6); therefore, carrying the basis of your argument for Mary, a Greek word (charitoō), over to the believer, neither is there room in the believer for sin.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

You’re talking consequences, me and Trent are talking sin-debt.

You are misunderstanding Trent.

I’ve not misconstrued the canon, I’m comparing it to scripture. The canon “misses the mark.”

Your perception of it surely does.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

That is a false distinction that is not supported by the scriptures you cite. Justification is a real change in the person, not merely a legal imputation.

It’s not a false distinction, Robert, the distinction is clearly seen by the two different words used: justification and sanctification. (Note the two different words).

What proof do you offer that justification and sanctification are the same, and what proof do you offer that “justification is a real change in the person?”
Robert in SD:

Again, I think you are deceiving yourself about this distinction.

That’s easy to say.
Robert in SD:

Sin is absolutely forgiven, and real change is wrought in the person through initial justification. “Temporal punishment” is not about the forrgiveness of “sin that leads to death.” Temproal punishment is restricted to the restoration of holiness and the removing of one’s attachment to sin.

Where I come from (the teachings of the Apostles), if you’re in debt to sin, then your sins are not blotted out.
Robert in SD:

Clearly, you do not.

Sure I do, that’s why I’m criticizing it—it’s not biblical.
Robert in SD:

A temporal punishment remains for sins already forgiven. The sins have been blotted out, and the person has been made new, but there still remains concupiscence, which is not sin.

Where do we find the teaching that there remains in the believer, “concupiscence” which is not sin?
Robert in SD:

Ultimately, that concupiscence is completely removed, and we are returned to the perfectly sanctified state that Adam enjoyed before the fall.

Absolutely false; before the Fall Adam had no knowledge of evil; do you now have no knowledge of evil? If not, then according to what you say, you’re not jusitifed.
Robert in SD:

With most, purgatory is required, but some have that last attachment to sin removed here on earth. In either event, it is not “sin debt” that is being paid. The person is already made new and in Christ and in right relationship. This is merely the final application of God’s sanctifying grace.

Purgatory only makes sense to those who believe it, and those who believe in purgatory do so because they don’t understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ, IMO.
Robert in SD:

And as the Church has pointed out, God’s forgiveness is not merely a legal statement, but it is the actual removal of sin from the person, who is sanctified by that forgiveness. It is not apart from justification; it is part of the same process.

After the forgiveness of sins, the law of sin remains in the believer (Rom 7:23)—sin, not concupiscence.
Robert in SD:

As I noted above, and as the Church states, the sins are truly forgiven. The way to salvation is opened. What remains is the attachment to sin, which is removed by temporal punishment, which we endure as Paul exhorts.

How can there be an attachment to sin, if justification is the actual removal of sin, as you assert it is in the preceding post? (In the red type.)

How can you be attached to something that’s been removed???
Robert in SD:

The language of Paul is legal and spiritual. The language of God is absolute. When God says your sins are removed, they are actually removed; it is not just the ledger that is wiped clean. We are wiped clean. But our nature remains tied to sin; What we endure in Christ removes those ties and fully sanctifies us.

How can you be tied to something that’s been removed?
Robert in SD:

Sandy. I think it is you that has fallen away… so far that you can’t even see the morass you’ve made of the Christian faith.

You and Pete29, LOL.
Robert in SD:

This statement declares to me that you have no concept of what the biblical understanding is. The Catholic understanding is the biblical understanding.

You keep asserting that, and asserting something is the easy part.
Robert in SD:

I think we’ve said enough to each other. I’m going to stop this conversation before I start saying things that I’ll really regret. If you ever want to answer the question, start a new thread and PM me to join it.

You’re leaving because you can’t support your position, all you can do is repeat your position—over, and over, and over again.

 

[sandusky]

Why do you ignore these scriptures?

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.”

John 15:4-6 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”.

Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit?”

1 Chronicles 28:9 “If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you leave Him, He will cast you off forever”.

How about explaining each of those verses, and the purpose for which you’ve posted them?

 

[sandusky]

You have eyes, but you do not see.
You have ears, but you do not hear.
The Pharisees had it “nailed down” too, but couldn’t recognize Christ in their midst because they “knew it all”.
I pity you for your lack of humility if for nothing else.
I won’t respond to your posts anymore because it’s just :banghead:

Bye, Pete

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How about explaining each of those verses, and the purpose for which you’ve posted them?

The verses are clear.

Salvation is for those who endure.

The endurance is our endurance not God’s.

Answer this:

Who does God judge, us, or himself?

 

[guanophore]

Where I come from (the teachings of the Apostles), if you’re in debt to sin, then your sins are not blotted out.

I agree that this is Apostolic Teaching. That is why we know that Trent is not talking about the debt to the sin itself, but the debt to it’s temporal consequence.

Sure I do, that’s why I’m criticizing it—it’s not biblical.

Where do we find the teaching that there remains in the believer, “concupiscence” which is not sin?

Do you believe that the “flesh” spoken of in scripture against which we battle is sinful in itself?

Purgatory only makes sense to those who believe it,

You know, I have found this to be the case with many matters of faith.

After the forgiveness of sins, the law of sin remains in the believer (Rom 7:23)—sin, not concupiscence.

Ok, I think this answers my question above. Catholics do not believe in total depravity, which is why we think of the “law of sin” being different than actual sin.

How can there be an attachment to sin, if justification is the actual removal of sin, as you assert it is in the preceding post? (In the red type.)

That is what “law of sin” means. It is an attachment, ,or tendency toward sin.

How can you be attached to something that’s been removed???

How can you be tied to something that’s been removed?

After the forgiveness of sins, the law of sin remains in the believer (Rom 7:23)—sin, not concupiscence.

Does the law of sin remain, or not?

The sin is removed, not the tendency toward it.

I think the rejection of the redemption of the flesh is one of the things that makes the Reformed theology deficient.

 

[RobHom]

How about explaining each of those verses, and the purpose for which you’ve posted them?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to respond to his question instead of asking another question.

Is it fear that prevents you from answering?

 

[sandusky]

CHESTERTONRULES:

The verses are clear.

Salvation is for those who endure.

The endurance is our endurance not God’s.

Correct.
CHESTRTONRULES:

Answer this:

Who does God judge, us, or himself?

He judges people.

However, believers do not come into condemnation (Jn 5:24); clearly, there’s a difference between the judgment of believers, and the judgment of the world.

 

[sandusky]

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to respond to his question instead of asking another question.

Is it fear that prevents you from answering?

Which question?

 

[sandusky]

You know, I have found this to be the case with many matters of faith.

Guanophore, as you do with Scripture, so you have taken what I’ve said OUT OF CONTEXT.
.

That’s very Catholic of you!!

 

[RobHom]

Which question?

Pick one…maybe the one about the scriptures you avoided dealing with…