Could an atheist go to heaven?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is so not an answer. It seems that you are saying that a person cannot sin after a "true conversion" or that someone who struggles with what is termed a "besetting sin" is not truly converted.

Well, I would expect the amount of sinning to be reducing with time. Wouldn't you?

How would you phrase it better?

 

[Light of the East]

Well, I would expect the amount of sinning to be reducing with time. Wouldn't you?

How would you phrase it better?

Well, I would say we are in agreement. I would say that it is hard to just look at any person and say that they are not trying to do better, unless, of course, they are someone like Hilary Clinton who is obviously neither repentant nor cares at all about changing her life.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Jesus never mentioned "believer's baptism" either, did He? He also never mentioned "making a decision for Jesus," in vitro fertilization, or artificial contraception.

You sola types have a real problem trying to make the whole Christian life be about that which is only found in the Bible.

Actually Jesus did mention baptism.

Mark 16:16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[Light of the East]

Actually Jesus did mention baptism.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That is not "believer's baptism," the fond invention of the mid-1800's revivalist types such as Charles Grandison Finney. You are trying to read into the verse that which is not there.

And if that is what was meant, then why didn't the first Christians perform "believer's baptism?" Why did it take almost 1900 years to be discovered if this is what this verse meant? Were they all that stupid???

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Nothing has me in a tizzy from the Bible. It's people who don't know the Bible and refuse to listen that get under my saddle.

Light, with all due respect, you said Jesus never mention baptism. Mark 16:16 has been quoted multiple times and you were found to be flat out wrong yet you are continuing down this road. Why?

In an earlier post you said people in the OT were saved by circumcision. And that salvation is a corporate thing and you implied the NT believer is saved by their membership to the church, which in your mind is the RCC.

When I asked you how were females saved through circumcision in the OT you basically said they were saved by proxy through the man who is the head. But that theology is flawed in a major way. You said that Adam sinned and therefore was responsible as the head also a flaw since the bible says it was EVE who led Adam into it and sinned first.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Circumcision was never a means to salvation. Nor is church membership. The very notion of circumcision as salvation is not found in scripture. According to you, if anyone is circumcised and they still act like heathens and follow nothing of God they are still saved. Not true. The people of the OT were found in Abrahams bosom which is where Jesus went to free them as the bible says, then preached to those

That is not "believer's baptism," the fond invention of the mid-1800's revivalist types such as Charles Grandison Finney. You are trying to read into the verse that which is not there.

And if that is what was meant, then why didn't the first Christians perform "believer's baptism?" Why did it take almost 1900 years to be discovered if this is what this verse meant? Were they all that stupid???

With all due respect Light, it is a believers baptism, it says plainly you must BELIEVE (believe in what, JESUS) and be baptized. See how he ties the two together.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Honestly, you tried to say people were saved by circumcision in the OT and this just baffled me beyond belief. I really did not even know where to start with that one.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, I would say we are in agreement. I would say that it is hard to just look at any person and say that they are not trying to do better, unless, of course, they are someone like Hilary Clinton who is obviously neither repentant nor cares at all about changing her life.

As opposed to Donald Trump whose sorrow and repentance over the past sins of his life are so evident.

 

[Light of the East]

Light, with all due respect, you said Jesus never mention baptism. Mark 16:16 has been quoted multiple times and you were found to be flat out wrong yet you are continuing down this road. Why?

Why? Because you are dead wrong. Believer's baptism was started 1800 years after Christ and the Apostles. There is no evidence of any such thing as "believer's baptism" in the manner in which Baptists and Evangelicals believe in it. None. Furthermore, the evidence we have from the historical writings of the Church point to the salvific nature of baptism and that whole families were baptized at one time, including infant children. One of the Early Fathers even gives instruction as to how to baptize children. So you are wrong, sir, when you try to make the command to be baptized to mean "believer's baptism."

In an earlier post you said people in the OT were saved by circumcision. And that salvation is a corporate thing and you implied the NT believer is saved by their membership to the church, which in your mind is the RCC.

Salvation is a corporate thing. The idea of somehow having salvation outside the congregation of God came along with Fundamentalism and the idea of having a "personal relationship with God." No such idea ever existed prior to that.

You see, your problem is that you are believing in man-made fairy tales which were made up in the last 500 years. They are coloring what you think and how you read the Bible. I know...been there done that as a Protestant myself, and it is very hard to break out of that thinking. But what you need to do is to go all the way back to the first Christians, examine what they believed, then find that organization which practices those beliefs today.

When I asked you how were females saved through circumcision in the OT you basically said they were saved by proxy through the man who is the head. But that theology is flawed in a major way. You said that Adam sinned and therefore was responsible as the head also a flaw since the bible says it was EVE who led Adam into it and sinned first.

Well, that is a covenant principle. It is the principle of hierarchy. It's why the nation of Israel was taken from being the special people of God - because the spiritual covenant head, the high priest, acted for the nation in having the Messiah killed. The same principle is true of Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur where the high priest acted on behalf of the nation and offered a sacrifice for the sins of the nation.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Wrong context, sir. Paul is explaining why women are not to be in church leadership. That has nothing to do with the Fall and the fact that Adam is the one who plunged us into sin. Read the WHOLE Bible, not just the snippets you think support your ideas. Roman 5 says NOTHING about Eve when it talks about mankind being affected by the Fall. It is Adam. Cherry-picking verses is not truth.

Circumcision was never a means to salvation. Of course it was. You don't know your Bible nor how a covenant works. Read Ray Sutton's book on covenant. Nor is church membership. The Church is the Body of Christ, yet you are claiming that one can be saved outside the Body of Christ. That's rich, sir! The very notion of circumcision as salvation is not found in scripture. Learn to understand the Bible and you will see it. According to you, if anyone is circumcised and they still act like heathens and follow nothing of God they are still saved. Yes, because salvation is being made part of the congregation of God. What will happen if they act like heathens is that they will be cursed with the covenant curse. Learn covenant, sir. Not true. The people of the OT were found in Abraham's bosom which is where Jesus went to free them as the bible says, then preached to those


With all due respect Light, it is a believers baptism, it says plainly you must BELIEVE (believe in what, JESUS) and be baptized. See how he ties the two together.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Honestly, you tried to say people were saved by circumcision in the OT and this just baffled me beyond belief. I really did not even know where to start with that one.

Here's a good place to start -- read Ray Sutton's book on covenant, THAT YOU MAY PROSPER and then you will understand what the Bible is teaching. You can read it free online at the I.C.E freebooks website. And BTW - Sutton is a Protestant, just so you know that you won't get Papist cooties when you read it!

 

[Light of the East]

As opposed to Donald Trump whose sorrow and repentance over the past sins of his life are so evident.

And you brought him into the picture for what reason? (Other than perhaps you are a Clinton supporter)>

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And you brought him into the picture for what reason? (Other than perhaps you are a Clinton supporter)>

In response to another post bringing Hillary Clinton into the picture. Seemed only fair. Didn't you see that?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Light, with all due respect, you said Jesus never mention baptism. Mark 16:16 has been quoted multiple times and you were found to be flat out wrong yet you are continuing down this road. Why?

Why? Because you are dead wrong. Believer's baptism was started 1800 years after Christ and the Apostles. There is no evidence of any such thing as "believer's baptism" in the manner in which Baptists and Evangelicals believe in it. None. Furthermore, the evidence we have from the historical writings of the Church point to the salvific nature of baptism and that whole families were baptized at one time, including infant children. One of the Early Fathers even gives instruction as to how to baptize children. So you are wrong, sir, when you try to make the command to be baptized to mean "believer's baptism."

In an earlier post you said people in the OT were saved by circumcision. And that salvation is a corporate thing and you implied the NT believer is saved by their membership to the church, which in your mind is the RCC.

Salvation is a corporate thing. The idea of somehow having salvation outside the congregation of God came along with Fundamentalism and the idea of having a "personal relationship with God." No such idea ever existed prior to that.

You see, your problem is that you are believing in man-made fairy tales which were made up in the last 500 years. They are coloring what you think and how you read the Bible. I know...been there done that as a Protestant myself, and it is very hard to break out of that thinking. But what you need to do is to go all the way back to the first Christians, examine what they believed, then find that organization which practices those beliefs today.

When I asked you how were females saved through circumcision in the OT you basically said they were saved by proxy through the man who is the head. But that theology is flawed in a major way. You said that Adam sinned and therefore was responsible as the head also a flaw since the bible says it was EVE who led Adam into it and sinned first.

Well, that is a covenant principle. It is the principle of hierarchy. It's why the nation of Israel was taken from being the special people of God - because the spiritual covenant head, the high priest, acted for the nation in having the Messiah killed. The same principle is true of Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur where the high priest acted on behalf of the nation and offered a sacrifice for the sins of the nation.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Wrong context, sir. Paul is explaining why women are not to be in church leadership. That has nothing to do with the Fall and the fact that Adam is the one who plunged us into sin. Read the WHOLE Bible, not just the snippets you think support your ideas. Roman 5 says NOTHING about Eve when it talks about mankind being affected by the Fall. It is Adam. Cherry-picking verses is not truth.

Circumcision was never a means to salvation. Of course it was. You don't know your Bible nor how a covenant works. Read Ray Sutton's book on covenant. Nor is church membership. The Church is the Body of Christ, yet you are claiming that one can be saved outside the Body of Christ. That's rich, sir! The very notion of circumcision as salvation is not found in scripture. Learn to understand the Bible and you will see it. According to you, if anyone is circumcised and they still act like heathens and follow nothing of God they are still saved. Yes, because salvation is being made part of the congregation of God. What will happen if they act like heathens is that they will be cursed with the covenant curse. Learn covenant, sir. Not true. The people of the OT were found in Abraham's bosom which is where Jesus went to free them as the bible says, then preached to those


With all due respect Light, it is a believers baptism, it says plainly you must BELIEVE (believe in what, JESUS) and be baptized. See how he ties the two together.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Honestly, you tried to say people were saved by circumcision in the OT and this just baffled me beyond belief. I really did not even know where to start with that one.

Here's a good place to start -- read Ray Sutton's book on covenant, THAT YOU MAY PROSPER and then you will understand what the Bible is teaching. You can read it free online at the I.C.E freebooks website. And BTW - Sutton is a Protestant, just so you know that you won't get Papist cooties when you read it!

That is your opinion, and that is fine, but it is not based on anything biblical. Truth is there is no biblical basis for infant baptism....yet I am sure you support that.

I do not need to read Sutton's book. I read the bible and the Holy Spirit brings it to life in my heart.

Jhn 8:31

¶
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Jhn 8:32

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Nothing has me in a tizzy from the Bible. It's people who don't know the Bible and refuse to listen that get under my saddle.

What appears to get under your saddle are those who are Protestant.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Light of the East]

What appears to get under your saddle are those who are Protestant.

Like I said -- those who refuse to listen. I think it is the height of arrogance for modern day Christians to think that they are smarter than the men who walked with the Apostles, yet Protestants, especially the preaching class, somehow think that they have a better understanding of the faith than those who actually developed the faith under severe persecution. Such hubris!

And the main thing that gets under my saddle is that those same Protestant pastors, through their disingenuous preaching and revisionist history, kept me in the dark and out of the Apostolic faith for 25 years. Yes, it was my fault that I didn't fact check the nonsense they were preaching from the pulpit, that I didn't read the Early Fathers and realize that Protestantism doesn't have a leg upon which to stand and is an anomaly from the truth, yet at the same time, I trusted that those men were telling me the truth when they were basically pulling my leg with theological fairy tales.

So yeah......I have a distinct attitude regarding Protestantism.

 

[Light of the East]

I do not need to read Sutton's book. I read the bible and the Holy Spirit brings it to life in my heart.

In other words "I'm scared to read anything that might disrupt my carefully constructed little palace of truth"

 

[Light of the East]

In response to another post bringing Hillary Clinton into the picture. Seemed only fair. Didn't you see that?

Sheeesh......I was just using her as the most obvious and well-known example of a wretched and sinful life. I didn't mean to drag us into the sewer of American politics.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Like I said -- those who refuse to listen. I think it is the height of arrogance for modern day Christians to think that they are smarter than the men who walked with the Apostles, yet Protestants, especially the preaching class, somehow think that they have a better understanding of the faith than those who actually developed the faith under severe persecution. Such hubris!

And the main thing that gets under my saddle is that those same Protestant pastors, through their disingenuous preaching and revisionist history, kept me in the dark and out of the Apostolic faith for 25 years. Yes, it was my fault that I didn't fact check the nonsense they were preaching from the pulpit, that I didn't read the Early Fathers and realize that Protestantism doesn't have a leg upon which to stand and is an anomaly from the truth, yet at the same time, I trusted that those men were telling me the truth when they were basically pulling my leg with theological fairy tales.

So yeah......I have a distinct attitude regarding Protestantism.

Thank you for confirming. I'm sure it helps many here to understand your contempt before electing to decide whether or not they wish to engage with one predisposed to having no respect for their perspective from a place of faith.

And in light of the confession, I would hope the men that walked with Jesus would be given more respect having died horrific deaths, save for John, in delivering the true word of Christ to the world.

And in honor of that sacrifice the teachings of their precious Jesus would be carried forward into the world he told them to enter and spread his good news.
As such, the falsehoods such as infant baptism, purgatory that blasphemes Jesus' affirmation in his dying breaths from the cross wherein he said, "it is finished", idolatry, necromancy, violating Jesus admonition in Matthew 23:9 , and many other trespasses, would not stand to this day as a methodology employed to obscure the path to Salvation. While convening councils of corrupt sinners to denounce the sola of teachings one by one that Jesus died to impart.

And place in its stead iconography identified as that which stands as idolatrous palace bearing the visage of God, and the title of mother, built on the graves of the dead. Where corrupt men place themselves as emissaries between the faithful and God and in the place of Jesus count themselves as able to forgive sins.

And low, my hope is satisfied. Because those men who knew our Jesus did stay true to his word. To the point they were slaughtered for never deviating from it. While Jesus prophecies in the wake of their martyrdom did come to life in the flesh and its fate is promised to arrive in the Revelation that concludes the reign of blasphemy and apostasy.
Matthew 24:24, Revelation 17.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Jesus died to deliver the example and the message of Salvation. No man writes his own doctrine and overcomes that. But such a man shall have eternity to explain to atheists why he was wrong.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

In other words "I'm scared to read anything that might disrupt my carefully constructed little palace of truth"

No Light, I am not scared to read things. I actually read a lot. I am simply not interested in reading something that produces twisted doctrine. So it appears Ray Sutton is a huge ecumenticalist....big shocker.

What are the eggs in your avatar Light? Are those Easter Eggs or some cultural thing?

 

[Light of the East]

No Light, I am not scared to read things. I actually read a lot. I am simply not interested in reading something that produces twisted doctrine. So it appears Ray Sutton is a huge ecumenticalist....big shocker.

What are the eggs in your avatar Light? Are those Easter Eggs or some cultural thing?

Ray Sutton is hardly an ecummenicist. He is a conservative Calvinist and a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church.

Those are psanky eggs, which are Eastern Catholic eggs done for Pascha, or as you called it, Easter.

 

[Light of the East]

As such, the falsehoods such as infant baptism, purgatory that blasphemes Jesus' affirmation in his dying breaths from the cross wherein he said, "it is finished", idolatry, necromancy, violating Jesus admonition in Matthew 23:9 , and many other trespasses, would not stand to this day as a methodology employed to obscure the path to Salvation. While convening councils of corrupt sinners to denounce the sola of teachings one by one that Jesus died to impart.

And place in its stead iconography identified as that which stands as idolatrous palace bearing the visage of God, and the title of mother, built on the graves of the dead. Where corrupt men place themselves as emissaries between the faithful and God and in the place of Jesus count themselves as able to forgive sins.

Your quote shows that you do not know the history of Christianity, much the same as I did not. Much the same as me, you have believed fairy tales told to you from Protestant pastors. I have seen sites where Calvinist evangelists have said that the first Christians were Presbyterians. I have seen sites where the writer says that Jesus preached from the KJV Bible. Serious!

You need to read the writings of the first Christians and stop believing in these Protestant fairy tales. You need to read the councils and see that these men defended the deity of Christ and the salvation by faith through grace, opposing the works of the Law that the Jews were trying to impose on Christians.

Or you can remain in la-la land. The choice is really yours.