Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

[Walpole]

??????????????????? So, the apostles didn't really talk to God/Christ ???? WOW!

Who said that?

I said your conclusion is false. (You concluded Christ is not God.)

 

[Edward]

, I don't think that's the main point. the point is what is the difference between those who come to faith and those who don't since we all start out not having faith? As you know, I say our faith is a gift given to some and not others.

Romans 12:3
3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.../

:wink

 

[JLB]

But the ones he had already given to know the mysteries at that particular moment, were saved/born again. Again, "to know", is intended to know at the spiritual level of understanding

Amen. So we agree Judas was saved at that moment.

and encompasses all those who would ever become His disciples, past, present, future, everywhere

You added this to the scripture like much of what you post.





JLB

 

[JLB]

But the ones he had already given to know the mysteries at that particular moment, were saved/born again.

Yes, as they had heard and believed the Gospel, and were following Jesus.

 

[Fastfredy0]

There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone.

Premise 1: The apostles spoke to Christ
Premise 2: There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God.
Conclusion: Christ is not God.

I said your conclusion is false. (You concluded Christ is not God.)

I am trying to draw you a simple picture using a syllogism. We agree that the conclusion is false. Now you simply have to look at why the conclusion is false.

It could be premise 1 is false. But there are 100s of examples of people talking to Christ/God directly.
It could be premise 2 is false. Premise 2 is your statement that: "There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone."
It could be that premise 1 and premise 2 do not support the conclusion. This would be a logic fallacy. Premise 1 and premise 2, if true, must logically support the conclusion. (unless you don't believe the presupposition that the Bible to be true)

There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone.

Salvation history is about God using intermediaries. From prophets to priests, God has always used man to convey His message.

You uphold intermediaries, here are some "intermediary" prayers:
“Remember, most loving Virgin Mary,
never was it heard
that anyone who turned to you for help
was left unaided. . . .
I run to your protection
for you are my mother.”

“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy,
hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope.
To you we cry, the children of Eve;
to you we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this land of exile.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
lead us home at last.”

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that Catholics do not pray to saints in heaven or to Mary; rather, Catholics are taught they can ask saints or Mary to pray for them. According to the Roman Catholic Church, asking saints in heaven for their prayers is no different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Many Catholics do, in fact, pray directly to saints and/or Mary, as seen in the above prayers. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray, the practice has no biblical basis. Gotquestions.org

 

[jaybo]

Salvation history is about God using intermediaries. From prophets to priests, God has always used man to convey His message. Creation is the theater of God's grace, which culminates in His ultimate act of using man by His becoming one. There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone.

The Church is an extension of the Incarnation. If you have a "direct line to God", you don't need the Church and therefore Jesus instituting one was superfluous.

Everyone "born of the Spirit" has a "direct line to God" (including me).

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come." John 16:13

It truly saddens me that you don't understand the basis of the New Covenant, but instead are caught up in the Old Covenant of being separated from a remote God, subject to His external rules. The priesthood being separate from the rest of the people is not part of the New Covenant. We Christians are all the adopted children of God, part of His immediate family.

You can rely on "the church", priests, rituals, etc. that you think are necessary to live a Christian life, just like the OT Jews lived. I rely on my Savior.

 

[rogerg]

Yes, as they had heard and believed the Gospel, and were following Jesus.

[Jhn 6:65-68 KJV]
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

It is not given to everyone to hear the Gospel

 

[jaybo]

Premise 1: The apostles spoke to Christ
Premise 2: There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God.
Conclusion: Christ is not God.


I am trying to draw you a simple picture using a syllogism. We agree that the conclusion is false. Now you simply have to look at why the conclusion is false.

It could be premise 1 is false. But there are 100s of examples of people talking to Christ/God directly.
It could be premise 2 is false. Premise 2 is your statement that: "There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone."
It could be that premise 1 and premise 2 do not support the conclusion. This would be a logic fallacy. Premise 1 and premise 2, if true, must logically support the conclusion. (unless you don't believe the presupposition that the Bible to be true)





You uphold intermediaries, here are some "intermediary" prayers:
“Remember, most loving Virgin Mary,
never was it heard
that anyone who turned to you for help
was left unaided. . . .
I run to your protection
for you are my mother.”

“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy,
hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope.
To you we cry, the children of Eve;
to you we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this land of exile.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
lead us home at last.”

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that Catholics do not pray to saints in heaven or to Mary; rather, Catholics are taught they can ask saints or Mary to pray for them. According to the Roman Catholic Church, asking saints in heaven for their prayers is no different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Many Catholics do, in fact, pray directly to saints and/or Mary, as seen in the above prayers. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray, the practice has no biblical basis. Gotquestions.org

I was told by an ex-Catholic that asking (praying!) to Mary and/or "saints" in heaven -- we're all saints -- is nothing more than ancestor worship. I agree with him 100%.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I was told by an ex-Catholic that asking (praying!) to Mary and/or "saints" in heaven -- we're all saints -- is nothing more than ancestor worship. I agree with him 100%.

Going to intermediaries to speak to God (excluding Christ) is a SERIOUS offense.

Hmmm, I wonder if one can go to an intermediary to intercede for going to intermediary .... *giggle* ... I'm being naughty

 

[Walpole]

Everyone "born of the Spirit" has a "direct line to God" (including me).

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come." John 16:13

It truly saddens me that you don't understand the basis of the New Covenant, but instead are caught up in the Old Covenant of being separated from a remote God, subject to His external rules. The priesthood being separate from the rest of the people is not part of the New Covenant. We Christians are all the adopted children of God, part of His immediate family.

You can rely on "the church", priests, rituals, etc. that you think are necessary to live a Christian life, just like the OT Jews lived. I rely on my Savior.

Since you have a direct line to God, are you thus able to:

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Forgive sins?
- Anoint yourself?
- Write your own Scriptures?
- Authenticate other Scripture not penned by you?


All these things are done by and through the Church, which is an extension of the Incarnation. None of these are even possible with a "just me and Jesus" theology or if one has "a direct line to God." Perhaps that's why many believe one doesn't have to do any of these things. After all, the very concept of the Church is meaningless if one truly has "a direct line with God."

 

[jaybo]

Going to intermediaries to speak to God (excluding Christ) is a SERIOUS offense.

Hmmm, I wonder if one can go to an intermediary to intercede for going to intermediary .... *giggle* ... I'm being naughty

I would call it an act of ignorance rather than a SERIOUS offense. People have been led astray by false doctrine instead of paying attention to the truth in Christ.

 

[Walpole]

Premise 1: The apostles spoke to Christ
Premise 2: There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God.
Conclusion: Christ is not God.


I am trying to draw you a simple picture using a syllogism. We agree that the conclusion is false. Now you simply have to look at why the conclusion is false.

It could be premise 1 is false. But there are 100s of examples of people talking to Christ/God directly.
It could be premise 2 is false. Premise 2 is your statement that: "There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone."
It could be that premise 1 and premise 2 do not support the conclusion. This would be a logic fallacy. Premise 1 and premise 2, if true, must logically support the conclusion. (unless you don't believe the presupposition that the Bible to be true)





You uphold intermediaries, here are some "intermediary" prayers:
“Remember, most loving Virgin Mary,
never was it heard
that anyone who turned to you for help
was left unaided. . . .
I run to your protection
for you are my mother.”

“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy,
hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope.
To you we cry, the children of Eve;
to you we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this land of exile.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
lead us home at last.”

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that Catholics do not pray to saints in heaven or to Mary; rather, Catholics are taught they can ask saints or Mary to pray for them. According to the Roman Catholic Church, asking saints in heaven for their prayers is no different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Many Catholics do, in fact, pray directly to saints and/or Mary, as seen in the above prayers. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray, the practice has no biblical basis. Gotquestions.org

You obviously missed my point which is why your syllogism was flawed. I'll try again...

---> The very fact that you know the Apostles spoke with Christ is because that fact came via an intermediary! It wasn't put into your head directly by God like a gnostic revelation. Rather, it was witnessed, written down and memorialized by...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

Intermediaries!

 

[Fastfredy0]

Since you have a direct line to God, are you thus able to:

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Forgive sins?
- Anoint yourself?
- Write your own Scriptures?
- Authenticate other Scripture not penned by you?

This is illogical/fantastical.
Let's use it for humor.

Sine you have a direct line to your wife, are you able to:
-produce children by yourself
-marry yourself
-go to the bathroom by yourself (hmmm, well that one is true ... giggles)

 

[jaybo]

Since you have a direct line to God, are you thus able to:

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Forgive sins?
- Anoint yourself?
- Write your own Scriptures?
- Authenticate other Scripture not penned by you?


All these things are done by and through the Church, which is an extension of the Incarnation. None of these are even possible with a "just me and Jesus" theology or if one has "a direct line to God." Perhaps that's why many believe one doesn't have to do any of these things. After all, the very concept of the Church is meaningless if one truly has "a direct line with God."

Didn't you post this (or something similar) earlier? Your reductio ad absurdum examples have no value.

It truly saddens me that you have missed the essence of what it means to be a Christian -- a child of God -- and instead reduce it to practicing rituals. None of what you cited above has anything to do with having a personal relationship with God. They're all ritual acts that have nothing to do with the deity.

 

[Walpole]

This is illogical/fantastical.
Let's use it for humor.

Sine you have a direct line to your wife, are you able to:
-produce children by yourself
-marry yourself
-go to the bathroom by yourself (hmmm, well that one is true ... giggles)

Equivocation fallacy.

(We are talking about how God communicates His message and grace to man and His relationship to man, not the conjugal relationship of spouses.)

 

[Walpole]

Didn't you post this (or something similar) earlier? Your reductio ad absurdum examples have no value.

It truly saddens me that you have missed the essence of what it means to be a Christian -- a child of God -- and instead reduce it to practicing rituals. None of what you cited above has anything to do with having a personal relationship with God. They're all ritual acts that have nothing to do with the deity.

Yes, and you ignored it. Please explain to me why you don't do any of those things if you have a direct line to God.

For example, did you baptize yourself? If not, why?

 

[Fastfredy0]

You obviously missed my point which is why your syllogism was flawed. I'll try again...

---> The very fact that you know the Apostles spoke with Christ is because that fact came via an intermediary! It wasn't put into your head directly by God like a gnostic revelation. Rather, it was witness, written down and memorialized by...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

I see your point. My point are that the apostles, and 1000s of other people (Pilate) spoke direct to God/Christ ... therefore your statement that "There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone" is ridiculous.
Now, if you want to qualify/limit your statement you can make it true like:

EXCEPTING THOSE WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY TO GOD, "There is no such concept of anyone having a "direct line to God." Never. Not anyone." ... thus people today must have an intermediary. But this also falsely assumes we can't speak to God directly. I speak to him every day.

Premise 1: Pilate spoke to God/Christ
Premise 2: Pilate was not an intermediary
Conclusion: People have spoken to God directly without an intermediary

Aside: Praying to Mary or the saints is idol worship
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is [only] one God, and [only] one Mediator between God and mankind, the Man Christ Jesus, AMP

 

[jaybo]

Yes, and you ignored it. Please explain to me why you don't do any of those things if you have a direct line to God.

For example, did you baptize yourself? If not, why?

Again, it truly saddens me that you have missed the essence of what it means to be a Christian -- a child of God -- and instead reduce it to practicing rituals.

a) Baptism is a ritual.
b) Should I answer you with a "clever" retort? Okay, I went swimming the other day, went underwater, and resurfaced. So I "baptized" myself.

Do you or do you not have a personal, intimate relationship with God?

 

[Fastfredy0]

I would call it an act of ignorance rather than a SERIOUS offense.

Compromise ... it is an act of ignorance causing a SERIOUS offense.

Aside: We all have ignorance causing offenses ... unfortunately, we only see clearly enough to see the offenses in others and not ourselves. (hmmm, I think I just criticized myself ... perhaps I got everything right? LOL )

Aside 2: Some offenses are evidence of damning/disqualifying ... God is the judge

 

[Walpole]

Again, it truly saddens me that you have missed the essence of what it means to be a Christian -- a child of God -- and instead reduce it to practicing rituals.

a) Baptism is a ritual.
b) Should I answer you with a "clever" retort? Okay, I went swimming the other day, went underwater, and resurfaced. So I "baptized" myself.

Do you or do you not have a personal, intimate relationship with God?

Did you baptize yourself? Yes or no? If not, why? (Swimming is not baptism.)

And yes, baptism is a ritual, commanded by Christ.