Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

[Walpole]

There is a saying ... the victor writes the history books. Up till the reformation the R.C. church was the victor. The history of the first 300 years is unclear save in the eyes of the R.C. church. But this is irrelevant in my eyes. The church was and is and always will be the 'invisible church' which is defined as all believers.


I worship the God of Scripture, not the God of Scripture and Tradition. I don't care what man's institutions come up with in regards to theology unless it is formed from the foundation of scripture alone.


As you define 'pedigree', to this I agree. The R.C.s have a pedigree, though the first 300 years is an imaginary pedigree. (Granted, I have not studied the first 300 years and I am going on the few scraps I've heard about it. It is of no doctrinal importance to me).

So let me get this straight, you have not studied the first three hundred years of Church history, but yet you know the Church's history for those first three hundred years is erroneous?

We call this an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Fastfredy0]

So let me get this straight, you have not studied the first three hundred years of Church history, but yet you know the Church's history for those first three hundred years is erroneous.

We call this an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You have a point save for the fact that I know of men that have studied it and I am confident in their findings. You have done the same (put your confidence in the studies of men) and come to a different conclusion. We are in the same boat so to speak, dependent on others for our opinions. (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

But, as I said, this (the pedigree of the church) is of no concern to me; I don't depend on man to infallibly interpret God's word. My theology is based on the word of God exclusively (the Bible). Your theology (I assume you are an R.C.) is based on the same book, but R.C.s rely on men to interpret the book for you, men that add to the book by tradition and men that claim to be infallible; yet history showed they are NOT infallible as they have contradicted themselves. At one time the R.C. church had 3 infallible popes at once, the ultimate prize going to the victor who of course was the true 'infallible one'.
Even the R.C. scriptures are in doubt as the apocrypha is a deuterocanonical.

I praise God alone, not man (tradition) and God. I don't believe in WORKS salvation and if I were an R.C. I would cringe when I read: Galatians 5:2 Notice, it is I, Paul, who tells you that if you receive circumcision [or indulgences or purgatory, that one righteousness consists of that of Christ, Mary, the saints and oneself, sacraments, that the priest is another Christ, yahda, yahda, yahda], Christ will be of no benefit to you [for you will lack the faith in Christ that is necessary for salvation].
Of course, the R.C.s have a 'man' to tell them it doesn't mean what I and many others think it says.
I admire your steadfastness in your beliefs. Many of the R.C. experts think that I am going to hell; many of the non-R.C. experts think the R.C.s are going to hell. The outcome of our differences could be catastrophic for one of us. I am not worried and I assume you aren't worried either. (Aside: of course, the Moslem's think we are both going to hell ... )

*While the Catholic tradition considers seven of these books of the apocrypha to be deuterocanonical (Google)

 

[crossnote]

In other words, you have no pedigree and history.

As a born again believer, my pedigree is eternal in Christ...

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 (NASB) Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

 

[Walpole]

You have a point save for the fact that I know of men that have studied it and I am confident in their findings. You have done the same (put your confidence in the studies of men) and come to a different conclusion. We are in the same boat so to speak, dependent on others for our opinions. (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

But, as I said, this (the pedigree of the church) is of no concern to me; I don't depend on man to infallibly interpret God's word. My theology is based on the word of God exclusively (the Bible). Your theology (I assume you are an R.C.) is based on the same book, but R.C.s rely on men to interpret the book for you, men that add to the book by tradition and men that claim to be infallible; yet history showed they are NOT infallible as they have contradicted themselves. At one time the R.C. church had 3 infallible popes at once, the ultimate prize going to the victor who of course was the true 'infallible one'.
Even the R.C. scriptures are in doubt as the apocrypha is a deuterocanonical.

I praise God alone, not man (tradition) and God. I don't believe in WORKS salvation and if I were an R.C. I would cringe when I read: Galatians 5:2 Notice, it is I, Paul, who tells you that if you receive circumcision [or indulgences or purgatory, that one righteousness consists of that of Christ, Mary, the saints and oneself, sacraments, that the priest is another Christ, yahda, yahda, yahda], Christ will be of no benefit to you [for you will lack the faith in Christ that is necessary for salvation].
Of course, the R.C.s have a 'man' to tell them it doesn't mean what I and many others think it says.
I admire your steadfastness in your beliefs. Many of the R.C. experts think that I am going to hell; many of the non-R.C. experts think the R.C.s are going to hell. The outcome of our differences could be catastrophic for one of us. I am not worried and I assume you aren't worried either. (Aside: of course, the Moslem's think we are both going to hell ... )

*While the Catholic tradition considers seven of these books of the apocrypha to be deuterocanonical (Google)

If you admit you don't know Church history, I don't think you will want to enter a discussion on the canon, as there is NO CHURCH IN HISTORY which ever used a sixty-six book canon matching the Protestant canon. None. Nada.

 

[Walpole]

As a born again believer, my pedigree is eternal in Christ...

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 (NASB) Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

I stated in a previous post that Christianity of antiquity is demonstrably Catholic. I can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, epitaphs, art work, names of her opponents, etc. from each century, beginning with the first.

You replied with, "Impressive, I can provide the same going back 2000 years earlier."

I have asked you to provide the same and you have thus been unable to offer anything other than conjecture. Can you give me the name of a bishop of your church from say the fourth century? Fifth century? Eighth century?

What if I wanted to get on a plane and visit an archaeological site in the Holy Land, Greece or Rome from your church dating to the first or second century, where would you direct me?

 

[crossnote]

I stated in a previous post that Christianity of antiquity is demonstrably Catholic. I can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, epitaphs, art work, names of her opponents, etc. from each century, beginning with the first.

You replied with, "Impressive, I can provide the same going back 2000 years earlier."

I have asked you to provide the same and you have thus been unable to offer anything other than conjecture. Can you give me the name of a bishop of your church from say the fourth century? Fifth century? Eighth century?

What if I wanted to get on a plane and visit an archaeological site in the Holy Land, Greece or Rome from your church dating to the first or second century, where would you direct me?

I mentioned the Prophets (Moses, Isaiah, Daniel etc.), who were inspired of God, unlike some of the popes, bishops and cardinals we all know. Antiquity is meaningless if it is bereft of Truth.

 

[Fastfredy0]

If you admit you don't know Church history, I don't think you will want to enter a discussion on the canon, as there is NO CHURCH IN HISTORY which ever used a sixty-six book canon matching the Protestant canon. None. Nada.

Well, there is yet another different between the two of us that you infer.
I believe that it was God that ensured we would have the proper canon, and you
IMO believe it was man that ensured we would have the proper canon.
Thus your need to justify your presupposition that MAN is the foundation of truth, that MAN discerns what GOD has said, as it is man (the R.C. church) that decides what is conical.
I am sure you know more about pro-ported church history than I as you depend on man to know God better and your pro-ported church history is the foundation of your presupposition.

Biblical Canon
Roman Catholic model
The pope and church determine the canon for they have been so appointed by God.

Self-authenticating model (Reformed model)
The self-authenticating model finds fault with other models in that they find authority in something outside the canon itself for how a can standard that is not the ultimate authority determine the ultimate authority of the scriptures.

Grand kids here, have to go.

 

[Walpole]

I mentioned the Prophets (Moses, Isaiah, Daniel etc.), who were inspired of God, unlike some of the popes, bishops and cardinals we all know. Antiquity is meaningless if it is bereft of Truth.

FYI, the discussion was on Christianity, which began when God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Church history starts here.

Now, do you have anything demonstrating your church existed in antiquity? Can you give me anything from say the fifth century?

 

[rogerg]

He was destined to reign and rule with Christ and the other Apostles in the age to come.

Okay, I'm hoping this won't turn into an extended debate between us. Maybe we can make this the
last iteration since I'm sure neither of us will convince the other. The reason I feel it necessary to reply is that by your incorrect portrayal of the doctrines of election and eternal salvation, you also reduce Christ's achievement.
It was always God the Father's plan that Jesus would be crucified. Central to it was Judas Iscariot.
Had Judas not fulfilled the role God had anticipated for him, our salvation would not be possible. To accomplish that plan, Judas had to be a part of Christ's innermost circle. However, this does not mean that Judas was ever of the elect, only that he had a part in bringing the crucifixion to fruition. It was critical that those who were responsible for the crucifixion, especially Judas, not become aware of God's larger goal: God had ordained this plan before the world began. Please see the following:

[[1Co 2:7-8 KJV]
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Judas received the spirit of the world; he did not receive the Spirit which is of God:

[1Co 2:13-14 KJV]
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

How can we know that?

[Jhn 6:70 KJV]
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Even then was Judas a devil.

In order for God's plan to be kept a secret, Judas had to be treated in all ways, exactly like the other apostles until his betrayal of Jesus was completed.

[Jhn 6:64 KJV]
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus knew that Judas believed not and would betray him, so there is no doubt that he was not of the elect, even though he was very close to Jesus.

So, Jesus knew this from the beginning? The beginning of what? From the beginning of the world.

Therefore, It is not possible that Judas's betrayal of Jesus was only by a momentary lapse in judgement (as you seem to indicate) which will ultimately be ignored by God so he can "reign and rule" in the age to come. Jesus unquestionably informs us otherwise by the following verse:

[Mar 14:21 KJV]
21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

 

[Fastfredy0]

FYI, the discussion was on Christianity, which began when God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Church history starts here.

LOL, convenient. Cuts out the 2,000 years of the Jews. Not that anyone cares unless they are trying to support the proposition that man can speak for God... said proposition given the title 'R.C. tradition'.


Catholics claim the history of Christianity as exclusively their own history, going right back to Jesus, Peter, the Apostles and so on. However, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, goes back only to the 4th century and the Emperor Constantine (dubious Catholic historical claims notwithstanding). And a great many defining doctrines of the Catholic church date far after the 1st century, into the Middle and Modern Ages (e.g’s: Marian doctrines, Purgatory, papal infallibility etc.).
It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (16th Century), also known as the Counter Reformation, did the Catholic Church definitively and officially reject many central elements of the true gospel, as taught in the Scriptures (e.g., that salvation is by faith alone). Thus, many of the distinctions of the present day Catholic Church (that is, ways that the Catholic Church is distinct from Christian traditions) goes back only to the 4th, 11th and 16th centuries (and even more recent). https://biblereasons.com/christian-vs-catholic/

I am sure you can fine a website that gives your version of history. I don't care beyond a faint curiosity.
I rely on the Bible alone where the canon is determined by God .... and the R.C. church relies on "the bible where the R.C. church determines the canon + tradition + self-appointed infallibility of the pope in certain matters + apocrypha + whatever else they wish to add or subtract)

 

[Walpole]

Well, there is yet another different between the two of us that you infer.
I believe that it was God that ensured we would have the proper canon, and you
IMO believe it was man that ensured we would have the proper canon.
Thus your need to justify your presupposition that MAN is the foundation of truth, that MAN discerns what GOD has said, as it is man (the R.C. church) that decides what is conical.
I am sure you know more about pro-ported church history than I as you depend on man to know God better and your pro-ported church history is the foundation of your presupposition.

Biblical Canon
Roman Catholic model
The pope and church determine the canon for they have been so appointed by God.

Self-authenticating model (Reformed model)
The self-authenticating model finds fault with other models in that they find authority in something outside the canon itself for how a can standard that is not the ultimate authority determine the ultimate authority of the scriptures.

Grand kids here, have to go.

Self authenticating? That's completely illogical and ahistorical. Simple enough to prove:

Let's sit an honest seeker who wants to know the Christian faith in a library that contains hundreds of books and epistles, including the 66 books scattered amongst them which comprise the Protestant canon. He would have no idea what the Bible should be and be able to pick out your 66 books. He would be at a complete loss.

The reality is you can only hijack what the Catholic Church picked out for you. There is no inspired table of contents. Even all your top theologians will tell you they are taking a fallible guess at what is infallible Scripture.

 

[Walpole]

LOL, convenient. Cuts out the 2,000 years of the Jews. Not that anyone cares unless they are trying to support the proposition that man can speak for God... said proposition given the title 'R.C. tradition'.


Catholics claim the history of Christianity as exclusively their own history, going right back to Jesus, Peter, the Apostles and so on. However, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, goes back only to the 4th century and the Emperor Constantine (dubious Catholic historical claims notwithstanding). And a great many defining doctrines of the Catholic church date far after the 1st century, into the Middle and Modern Ages (e.g’s: Marian doctrines, Purgatory, papal infallibility etc.).
It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (16th Century), also known as the Counter Reformation, did the Catholic Church definitively and officially reject many central elements of the true gospel, as taught in the Scriptures (e.g., that salvation is by faith alone). Thus, many of the distinctions of the present day Catholic Church (that is, ways that the Catholic Church is distinct from Christian traditions) goes back only to the 4th, 11th and 16th centuries (and even more recent). https://biblereasons.com/christian-vs-catholic/

I am sure you can fine a website that gives your version of history. I don't care beyond a faint curiosity.
I rely on the Bible alone where the canon is determined by God .... and the R.C. church relies on "the bible where the R.C. church determines the canon + tradition + self-appointed infallibility of the pope in certain matters + apocrypha + whatever else they wish to add or subtract)

Non-sequitur.

We are talking about the history of Christianity, not Judaism. No one is claiming the likes of Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jacob were Catholic bishops.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since faith comes through the preached word of God, then everyone who is preached to must come to faith without exception since, according to the above, it is the preached word that brings faith.

jaybo stated that faith comes by hearing the word of God.
Why does this mean everyone must then come to have faith?

We could learn about God from looking around us and wondering who/what made the clouds, the mountains, etc.
Or we could hear about God from someone else...or a church.
Most person in the world today learn about God and Jesus from hearing about them or reading about them.

Missionaries are sent to other countries for the specific purpose of revealing the word of God to them.

Not everyone accepts the word.
Not everyone believes in God or wishes to believe in Him.

Jesus knew that not everyone would believe in Him.
He said: WHOEVER believes will be saved.
Whoever...means that not everyone will be saved.
John 3:16

Jesus said the few will be those that find the narrow road/gate.
It must be searched so that it can be found. Not everyone is interested in searching for God.
Matthew 7:14

Jesus said that when He knocks...we must open the door.
Some do not want to open the door...for various reasons we (some members) discussed in another thread.
Revelation 3:20

 

[GodsGrace]

LOL, convenient. Cuts out the 2,000 years of the Jews. Not that anyone cares unless they are trying to support the proposition that man can speak for God... said proposition given the title 'R.C. tradition'.


Catholics claim the history of Christianity as exclusively their own history, going right back to Jesus, Peter, the Apostles and so on. However, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, goes back only to the 4th century and the Emperor Constantine (dubious Catholic historical claims notwithstanding). And a great many defining doctrines of the Catholic church date far after the 1st century, into the Middle and Modern Ages (e.g’s: Marian doctrines, Purgatory, papal infallibility etc.).
It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (16th Century), also known as the Counter Reformation, did the Catholic Church definitively and officially reject many central elements of the true gospel, as taught in the Scriptures (e.g., that salvation is by faith alone). Thus, many of the distinctions of the present day Catholic Church (that is, ways that the Catholic Church is distinct from Christian traditions) goes back only to the 4th, 11th and 16th centuries (and even more recent). https://biblereasons.com/christian-vs-catholic/

I am sure you can fine a website that gives your version of history. I don't care beyond a faint curiosity.
I rely on the Bible alone where the canon is determined by God .... and the R.C. church relies on "the bible where the R.C. church determines the canon + tradition + self-appointed infallibility of the pope in certain matters + apocrypha + whatever else they wish to add or subtract)

The first church was the catholic church.
What other church do you believe was around in 150AD? or 90AD or 200AD?

There were some splintered groups here and there...gnostics, for instance. Manechaens.
But, luckily for us, the CC defended correct doctrine against these heretics.

You don't need a website for history....
But this might be one way to learn church history.

And I'd say that you rely on the bible....and the word of Calvin.
And the WCF....and many other doctrinal books that teach systematic theology and NOT the word of God.

No one can read the N.T. ON THEIR OWN,,,,
and come away with the beliefs of a calvinist.

No one can read John 3:16 and come away believing that WHOSOEVER means the elect.

 

[for_his_glory]

Easy: The one with pedigree going all the way back to Christ.

And which church would that be with a pedigree? Please be more specific.

Here is the question I asked in case someone didn't see it.

So, what church do you deem is Christ true Church who walk in obedience to His commands and statures?

 

[JLB]

It was always God the Father's plan that Jesus would be crucified. Central to it was Judas Iscariot.

How was Judas central to that plan?

What is it that Judas did that was the pivotal to Jesus being crucified?

You do understand that Jesus stayed in and around Jerusalem?

He did not run away and hide.

Judas always had a choice.


Again, what we have is irrefutable, undeniable truth from the word of God that Judas Iscariot was destined to reign with Christ and the other 11 Apostles in the age to come.


So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28


Judas was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and was sent to preach the Gospel to the lost, in which he followed Jesus for 3/1/2 years.


Judas then became a traitor; a guide for those who arrested Jesus.


Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. Luke 6:16


Judas was the the one thing, a follower of Christ, an Apostle, then he became another thing; a traitor, in which he departed from Christ, therefore he did not endure to the end.



Likewise, Saul of Tarsus as a persecutor and hater of the Church, in which he hunted down Christians to have them murdered like Stephen, then he became an Apostle of Jesus Christ; he was one thing, then he became the other; Paul remained faithful to the end, unlike Judas.






JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

Jesus is clear that those who are no longer living on earth are still alive:

Mark 12:26-27 ---> ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

I thought most Protestants still believed in life after death?

Jesus nor the angels have never returned for anyone after His ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father being our mediator before God, John 3:13. The resurrection of the dead has not happened yet as it is only our breath/spirit that returns back to God who gave it when this physical body returns to the dust of the ground from where it came from, Genesis 2:7; Ecc 12:7. No one is resurrected until the one and only return of Christ who calls His Bride to meet Him in the air and then forever we will be with Him in all of Gods glory, John 5:28, 29; 6:40; 1 Corinthians 15:51-55; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.​

Read them again. David is petitioning those in heaven...


Psalm 103:21 ---> "Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will."

Psalm 148:1-2 ---> "Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts."

Who are the "heavenly hosts", the "angels", those "from the heavens" and those "in the heights above"?


According to Protestantism, David's prayer to the saints in heaven is a sinful act.

The only ones in heaven are God, Jesus and the host of heaven being the angels God created. Notice those verses say "Praise the Lord all his heavenly host (Angels). You His servants are all that are here on earth who do His will.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Once again, a person presenting and taking the prayers of the primary petitioner to God is - by definition - an intercessor. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...on/intercessor)

You haven't addressed St. John's vision of heaven...

Rev 5:8 ---> If all your prayers go directly to God alone, why are angels and saints bringing them (prayers) to Him (God)? (cf. Rev. 5:8)

In other words, why are they serving as intermediaries?

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

No one but Jesus can make intercession for us before God.

Everyone that has ever died are still in their graves waiting for the resurrection when Christ returns on the last day. They who are Christ own will pass from physical death to life eternal with the Father.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Rev 5:8
The golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints (all that are Christ own are called saints in the scriptures) are everyone who has ever prayed to God as their prayers are as sweet odor to God as we give Him the sacrifice of praise, Psalms 141:2

 

[rogerg]

How was Judas central to that plan?

What is it that Judas did that was the pivotal to Jesus being crucified?

You do understand that Jesus stayed in and around Jerusalem?

He did not run away and hide.

Because Judas was foretold in Jeremiah that he would be the one to betray Jesus
This fulfilled the prophecy - it had to happen exactly this way.
[Mat 26:14 - 15 KJV]
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 And said [unto them], What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
[Mat 27:3, 9 KJV]
3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ...
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Judas informed where Jesus would be and when. Why do you think he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests?

 

[for_his_glory]

It may have been appropriate at the time the words were spoken, but after Judas turned on the Lord they were annulled.

We know by reading the scriptures that Judas felt remorse as he tried to give the money back. No one knows for sure if he repented or not.

 

[rogerg]

Again, what we have is irrefutable, undeniable truth from the word of God that Judas Iscariot was destined to reign with Christ and the other 11 Apostles in the age to come.


So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28

Betraying Jesus isn't usually considered following Him but any standard I know of. Initially It was Matthias who replaced him but ultimately it was Paul

[Act 1:18, 20, 24-25 KJV]
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. ...
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. ...
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Considering the above verses, which irrefutable, undeniable truth from the word of God do you speak of?