No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Which bullseye Billy_Ray?
You still haven't answered this question. There are two big targets in the Christian world. There is the Protestant target and the Catholic target. It does no good to say just aim for the Christian target. Both targets in this ****ogy have radically different bullseyes as there is major theological differences in their soteriology. I will leave aside pursuing your rabbit trail of debating this distinction without a difference at a latter time.

You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye Mesenja--I have already answered this one but you must of missed it. BTW Catholicism and Protestant have overlap in their beliefs. LDS and Protestants have very little overlap in their beliefs--LDS are way out there. But since you know that I am Protestant it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that I think that the bullseye is closer to the Protestant position.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye Mesenja-I have already answered this one but you must of missed it. By the way Catholicism and Protestant have overlap in their beliefs. LDS and Protestants have very little overlap in their beliefs--LDS are way out there. But since you know that I am Protestant it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that I think that the bullseye is closer to the Protestant position.

Is this the same as almost hitting the target,we almost hit the bullseye?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Is this the same as almost hitting the target,we almost hit the bullseye?

Mesenja, the bullseye is the Bible This seems so clear to me, I can't understand how you are missing this. You are getting it backwards. You are aiming for a church such as the LDS church and then going to the Bible to get proof texts to support your church, rather that going to the Bible to get your doctrine and then comparing the church to that standard. You are trying to focus between variations within the Protestant faith OR between Protestants and Catholicism yet your religion is clear to the right of norm. Instead of quibbling between A and B you should focus your attention to why your beliefs are completely outside of Biblical Christianity. That should be your focus.

A (Biblical Standard)
----->Church B
------------->Church C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>P (Mormonism)

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Mesenja, the bullseye is the Bible This seems so clear to me,I can't understand how you are missing this. You are getting it backwards. You are aiming for a church such as the LDS church and then going to the Bible to get proof texts to support your church,rather that going to the Bible to get your doctrine and then comparing the church to that standard. You are trying to focus between variations within the Protestant faith OR between Protestants and Catholicism yet your religion is clear to the right of norm. Instead of quibbling between A and B you should focus your attention to why your beliefs are completely outside of Biblical Christianity. That should be your focus.

A (Biblical Standard)
----->Church B
------------->Church C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>P (Mormonism)

If you aim for Church B which I ***ume is any one of the myriad Protestant churches or Church C which I ***ume is the Catholic church then you wont hit the biblical bullseye on the Christian target.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

If you aim for Church B which I ***ume is any one of the myriad Protestant churches or Church C which I ***ume is the Catholic church then you wont hit the biblical bullseye on the Christian target.

You are absolutely correct. The good news is that if A is the standard then B (Protestant) is a aweful lot better than P (Mormonism), wouldn't you agree?

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are absolutely correct. The good news is that if A is the standard then B (Protestant) is a awfully lot better than P (Mormonism), wouldn't you agree?

It's not a matter of my disagreeing or agreeing with you on this point. Either there is one way for salvation or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable. Either the ordinances are a specific channel of divine grace or they are important but not essential. Either Christ established one church which is visible and where doctrines matter or he established an invisible church in which all believers,regardless of denomination,are members and doctrines are not important.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

It's not a matter of my disagreeing or agreeing with you on this point. Either there is one way for salvation or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

This is an excellent point on your point because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Either the ordinances are a specific channel of divine grace or they are important but not essential.

You are inferring in priesthood authority here. Show me anywhere in the NT where any of the NT members held the Aaronic or Melchezedek priesthood besides Christ.

[Mesenja]

I will paraphrase it for clarity and convenience. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation except for the doctrines that are vague. Here is the translation of what you just said. The doctrine of salvation is one of the inessentials that we can disagree on. You have also just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. First you said that it is false that there is any "conflicting and contradictory doctrines" then you reverse yourself and say "some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas." Either the Bible is clear or it is vague on this subject.

Originally Posted by Billyray

This is an excellent point on your part because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

No BillyRay I am not alluding to priesthood authority here. I am making the argument that the Bible teaches us thhat certain ordinances are essential for our salvation.

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are inferring in priesthood authority here. Show me anywhere in the NT where any of the New Testament members held the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood besides Christ.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

I will paraphrase it clarity and convenience. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation except for the doctrines that are vague.

This is completely false. I never said that. Either you can't read or you have misrepresented my post. Here is my post again. Notice the underlined portion is NOT, I repeat NOT speaking about salvation and this should be clear given the preceding sentences.

Originally Posted by Billyray

This is an excellent point on your point because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This is completely false. I never said that. Either you can't read or you have misrepresented my post. Here is my post again. Notice the underlined portion is NOT,I repeat NOT speaking about salvation and this should be clear given the preceding sentences.

You started out by saying that the Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Then in the next sentence you are not speaking about the doctrine of salvation.

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

You started out by saying that the Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Then in the next sentence you are not speaking about the doctrine of salvation.

OK lets break this down for you into 3 separate statements.

1. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation.
2. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation.

3. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

(I think that these statements are pretty clear, and by the first two statements you would know my position.)
Now put all three statements together. Is the doctrine of salvation clear OR is the doctrine of salvation more vague by using statements 1 and 2?

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

OK lets break this down for you into 3 separate statements.

1. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation.
2. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation.
3. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

(I think that these statements are pretty clear,and by the first two statements you would know my position.)

Now put all three statements together. Is the doctrine of salvation clear OR is the doctrine of salvation more vague by using statements 1 and 2?

Apparently those disputed doctrines on which there is disagreement are not important enough to affect your salvation. And we know this to be a 100% fact. Give me a break.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

What are those rare exceptions?

I used the term "rare exceptions" simply as a stipulation because after the many years of dialogue with LDS if I did not include this stipulation you would search out crazy churches for the exception and thus conclude that my statement was false.

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Apparently those disputed doctrines on which there is disagreement are not important enough to affect your salvation. And we know this to be a 100% fact. Give me a break.

The disputed doctrine that I was speaking about was not about salvation but other doctrine. The definition of doctrine is "something that is taught". Thus there are many things that are taught that are not very clear and there are many things that are taught that are very clear from the Bible. Let me give you some examples of doctrine (something that is taught) and see if you can guess which ones are clear and which ones are not so clear.

1. Jesus died for our sins
2. Role of dinosaurs in creation and age of the earth.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The disputed doctrine that I was speaking about was not about salvation but other doctrine. The definition of doctrine is "something that is taught". Thus there are many things that are taught that are not very clear and there are many things that are taught that are very clear from the Bible. Let me give you some examples of doctrine (something that is taught) and see if you can guess which ones are clear and which ones are not so clear.

1. Jesus died for our sins

2. Role of dinosaurs in creation and age of the earth.

Which of these things is not like the other things Billy? I want to make it clear at the onset that I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine and will gladly accept and welcome any correction. It is just that I am trying to make a point.


1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.


2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Which of these things is not like the other things Billy? I want to make it clear at the onset that I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine and will gladly accept and welcome any correction. It is just that I am trying to make a point.


1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.


2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The issue revolves around the question--is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Although some verses may hint at works the overall message of the NT is one of salvation by faith alone. Faith plus works = salvation by works.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The issue revolves around the question--is salvation by faith alone,or by faith plus works? Although some verses may hint at works the overall message of the New Testament is one of salvation by faith alone. Faith plus works =salvation by works.

At least not as i see it. The issue is who am I to believe on the vital doctrine of salvation? If it was just a mater of making an appeal to the Bible and in your case that would mean the apostle Paul then understanding would come effortlessly and automatically. If this were so then his fellow apostle Peter would have no need to say "As also in all his letters,speaking in them of these things;in which are some things hard to be understood,which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,as they do also the other scriptures,to their own destruction."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

The issue is who am I to believe on the vital doctrine of salvation?

The Bible. If you stick with that you will be OK as long as you don't try to twist it.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Bible. If you stick with that you will be OK as long as you don't try to twist it.

The Catholics and Protestants both make an appeal to the Bible to support their doctrine.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

The Catholics and Protestants both make an appeal to the Bible to support their doctrine.

Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

Do I ask a Catholic or do I ask a Protestant.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Do I ask a Catholic or do I ask a Protestant.

Don't be silly. The Bible is God's revelation to us. The answers to your questions and my questions are in it. Us means you and me. Remember to A-Z scale? A is the true meaning of what God has revealed to us, not B or C or D or P (Mormonism). So why go B or C or D or P source rather than the A source?

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Don't be silly. The Bible is God's revelation to us. The answers to your questions and my questions are in it. Us means you and me. Remember to A-Z scale? A is the true meaning of what God has revealed to us,not B or C or D or P (Mormonism). So why go B or C or D or P source rather than the A source?

I just gave you an example of where two opposite interpretations are given yet both parties make their arguments from the Bible. Here it is again Billy.


1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.


2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

I posed the question about baptism to highlight the issue that you can not make an appeal to the Bible for every answer.

Originally Posted by Mesenja

1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.


2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The reason for this is simple. Both Catholics and Protestants will make scriptural arguments from the Bible to defend their position on baptism. Both take completely opposite views.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

The reason for this is simple. Both Catholics and Protestants will make scriptural arguments from the Bible to defend their position on baptism. Both take completely opposite views.

If both take opposite views then one is wrong or they both are wrong. So your question appears to be--"Is baptism required FOR salvation"? We are commanded to be baptized thus we would likely agree on this point and the majority of Christians do get baptized. But the question is not whether or not we should be baptized but rather is it an absolute requirement or a work on our part to be saved. Bottom line--we are either saved by faith OR saved by our works because faith + works = works.

Is there scripture evidence that we are saved by faith and not by works. Absolutely. If this is the case then how can you then say that works are required? You can't. Some verses may be interpreted by some that baptism is required but this would contradict the clear message in the NT that we are saved by our faith not our works.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

If both take opposite views then one is wrong or they both are wrong. So your question appears to be--"Is baptism required FOR salvation"? We are commanded to be baptized thus we would likely agree on this point and the majority of Christians do get baptized. But the question is not whether or not we should be baptized but rather is it an absolute requirement or a work on our part to be saved. Bottom line--we are either saved by faith OR saved by our works because faith + works=works.

Is there scripture evidence that we are saved by faith and not by works. Absolutely. If this is the case then how can you then say that works are required? You can't. Some verses may be interpreted by some that baptism is required but this would contradict the clear message in the New Testament that we are saved by our faith not our works.

The Catholic church takes a completely opposite view and yet your position is that the Bible is self interpreting. It appears that you are unwilling to answer this question. All you are doing is running around in circles. Without offering proof that baptism is a work or that we are saved by faith alone you are simply ***erting the conclusion in another form. This is a poor example to prove that the Bible is self intepreting.