[Athos]

If someone ....... contends there is no hell,

No one here contends there is no hell. This is a perfect example of how you distort things. The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

We are back to placing our own opinions above those of the Bible.

That, of course, is your opinion.

I have my own struggles to deal with and don't believe in bashing those who are likewise struggling. On the other hand, if you name the name of Christ, then you should be able to defend your views scripturally. To point out morality as found in the Bible is not bashing. To ask someone to support his/her views is not bashing.

Except for the bashing, which you do so well, this is all a red herring.

Christ is the sole source of salvation

This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.

As to politics, I view Trump and the repubs to be the lessor of two evils

After three years of Trumpism, you STILL don't recognize a nutcase when he's right in front of you and proving his idiocy on a daily basis, well, it's mind-boggling. For someone so Bible-oriented, it's like you've sold your soul to the devil.

[jlisenbe]

This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.

That is not true. Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that. Might want to check out Acts 4:12 as well. Try reading the third chapter of Romans. Galatians 2:20. Many, many others. Read Peters sermon in Acts 2. Acts 3:14-16. Acts 5:31. The list could go on and on.

Matthew 25.

[Athos]

That is not true.

Of course, it's true.

(quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).

Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that.

Gladly. It's Luther's famous principle that faith, not works, is all that is necessary for salvation. However, Luther managed to say that The Letter of James which states the opposite that "Faith without works is dead" is NOT part of the New Testamant.

It has little relevance to the present discussion.

[jlisenbe]

I noticed you did not read nor reference the NT passages. I value them far more than any proclamation by the Catholic Church.

You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.

[Athos]

I value them far more than any proclamation by the Catholic Church.

You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.

You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.

This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.

[jlisenbe]

You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.

This was your quote. "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.." Now maybe you think the Catholic Church is mainstream. I don't.

I said, "You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone." Again, that was in response to your quote above. So no, it is not a deflection or a distortion. It went to the very heart of your statement.

This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.

In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.

Matthew 25

[Athos]

Now maybe you think the Catholic Church is mainstream. I don't.

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination on the planet. It is the largest in the USA. It is the oldest. But you don't think it's mainstream. Good grief! You're in a world of your own. You may not LIKE that it's mainstream, but that doesn't permit you to deny it.

In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.

These are not directly related. They are instances describing my points in rebuttal of yours.

I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

[jlisenbe]

I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

So in the 12th century the official stance of the Catholic Church was that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is part of what Luther responded to. How does that support your position that people could believe in virtually anything so long as they were good people?

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

Which basically says nothing to support your position. "Things which are necessary to be believed" is the important part. Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians. If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"

Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.

[Athos]

So in the 12th century the official stance of the Catholic Church was that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is part of what Luther responded to. How does that support your position that people could believe in virtually anything so long as they were good people?

Where did you get this idea - that my position is that people can believe virtually anything as long as they are good people? This is a major distortion of yours.

Which [the Aquinas quote] basically says nothing to support your position.

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians.

If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?

If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"

Unlike you, I don't speak for God.

Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.

I have read them from the first time this subject came up many months ago and I have refuted each one in terms of unbelievers and hell. They're still in your post history - go back and read them.

You're getting weaker in your replies. That Middle East "documented" vision of Christ and conversion takes the cake. You're really stretching with that one.

[jlisenbe]

OK. First of all, why don't you calm down and try reaching inside and turning down the hatred knob some.

If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?

Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

No, I don't think it did. Go back and read it again. But perhaps we can make all this somewhat easier. You keep referring to a position you hold. Maybe I'm not clear on what that is. You say that, "The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT." I assume, then, that you believe that unbelievers (those with no belief or no faith) can be right with God, but perhaps that is wrong, so tell us what you believe about the process of getting one's sins forgiven and being in right standing with God. Or just tell it however you believe it. In other words, state your position. It would be much easier to go from there. I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it, fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your belief.

[Athos]

OK. First of all, why don't you calm down and try reaching inside and turning down the hatred knob some.

Kettle, pot, black. Take your own advice.

No, it didn't. Go back and read it again.

Yes, it did. Here it is again - just for you. Note the underlined section.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration

OK. Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o

YouTube?? You consider a person who made a YouTube video as documentation? In any case, your claim was a VISION from Jesus, not a DREAM. Big difference, doncha' think? Note distortion here.

You say that, "The contention [my] has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT."

You are correct.

I assume then that you believe that unbelievers can be right with God.

I believe that unbelievers do NOT go to hell for eternal punishment simply because of their lack of belief.

In other words, state your position.

I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.

I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it

You understand it quite well.

[How does it] fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your position.

As far as the "multitude of scriptures" you have offered as proof, I have answered each and every one (save Matthew 25 - I don't remember that one prior, but it too will be answered shortly)

[paraclete]

Athos, duck it all you want, the Scripture is clear, Jesus declared he is the only way, you can accept it, or reject it, but you have no excuse because you have been told

[Athos]

Athos, duck it all you want, the Scripture is clear, Jesus declared he is the only way, you can accept it, or reject it, but you have no excuse because you have been told

You people are amazing. When someone doesn't buy your act, you immediately threaten them with hellfire. Why do you hate humanity so much? Don't lay it on Jesus - he loved humanity.

[paraclete]

You people are amazing. When someone doesn't buy your act, you immediately threaten them with hellfire. Why do you hate humanity so much? Don't lay it on Jesus - he loved humanity.

I am not threatening you, as I said take the message or do the other thing. Yes Jesus loved all of us enough to lay down his life for us, he paid the price we could not, so I don't hate humanity, just the attitudes of some people

[Athos]

I am not threatening you

Of course you are. Here are your words - "You can accept it [Jesus being the only way], or reject it, but YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD"

No excuse? Why would I need an excuse? What for? What happens if I reject it (Jesus being the only way).

[paraclete]

Of course you are. Here are your words - "You can accept it [Jesus being the only way], or reject it, but YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD"

No excuse? Why would I need an excuse? What for? What happens if I reject it (Jesus being the only way).

Athos I abore circular arguments. let me put it this way Jesus loves you, there is nothing as sad as unrequited love

[talaniman]

You wingers ever consider it's not a rejection of Jesus that's the issue, but a rejection of your fundamentalist zeal that's the turn off for MANY? Not even all Christians go along with your version of what's considered Good Orderly Direction. I respectfully submit that quietly MOST don't.

[jlisenbe]

I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.

I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange. Perhaps you are running from the call of Christ?

It is still an interesting question that you have not answered. If people can be in right standing with God outside of faith in Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Why not just let everyone have the same route to God (whatever you believe that to be) that lies outside of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross?

[talaniman]

I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange.

I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.

It's not the words of ancient man I argue against, it's the words and actions of modern men I have a problem with.

[jlisenbe]

I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hitting people over the head". I quote scripture and present reasons for believing. How else should it be done?