Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Bible Highlighter]

I'll get back to you as soon as I attain to sinlessness.

Tchau, Tchau.

May God’s love shine upon you.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Tchau, Tchau.

May God’s love shine upon you.

Such sinless perfection. I'm so impressed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Jesus said,

”And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:26-27).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Basically many Christians I have talked with over the years hold to the belief held by Hitler in this video (that is approx. 4 minutes):

In other words, at least on some level they they think sin will not cause them to die. Yet, this same lie was pushed in the Garden of Eden by the serpent (the devil) with Eve.

 

[Buzzard3]

I know Eastern Orthodox have more apocrypha books than Roman Catholics. Now is this the delineating factor between what's considered Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church?

There are a few delineating factors between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church. I'm no expert on the matter, but I would say the greatest point of difference is the authority of the Pope.

There are a few seemingly minor differences in dogma, but as to how those differences relate to the respective apocryphal books, I don't know.

Eastern Orthodox clergy can get married too. Are there other Catholic Rites where their clergy can get married?

My understanding is that all the Eastern Catholic Churches permit married clergy, except for the Ethiopian Catholic Church.

There are actually a few married priests in the Roman Catholic Church - married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism. A lot of conservative Anglicans (and Episcopalians) have abandoned those churches in the wake of the rise of "liberalism" and converted to Catholicism.

Priestly celibacy is neither a dogma nor a doctrine in the Catholic Church, so the various Rites are free to follow their respective traditions and disciplines.

There is a musician; John Michael Talbot (I'm assuming you know who he is. He's pretty well known.) He had gotten married. Did he do this because he joined a Rite other than Roman Catholic. I know he lives in a commune (don't think they call it a "monastery" because there are single men, single women and married couples with families who live in this facility

I'd actually never heard of this bloke, but I don't think he's an ordained Catholic clergyman (either priest or religious), therefore he's free to marry.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I'd actually never heard of this bloke, but I don't think he's an ordained Catholic clergyman (either priest or religious), therefore he's free to marry.

I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.

If you like majestic music; you'd like his music. Very talented fellow! If you're familiar with Michael Card; he's friends with Michael Card. They've collaborated on some albums together.

 

[Buzzard3]

I never said it meant I can sin with impunity. And my sins have already been judged in Christ.

What does "my sins have already been judged in Christ" mean?

 

[Buzzard3]

Unless you are new to reading the Bible, there are verses that teach you can be saved by a belief alone. Try reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-4, Romans 11:6. You cannot honestly twist these verses to say salvation by works in these verses.

No point in reading verses in isolation - any verses that seemingly teach you can be saved by a belief alone are rendered irrelevant by the many verses that teach salvation thru faith and works (Exhibit A: James 2:24).

Besides that, what purpose does it serve anyone to argue that certain verses teach that you can be saved by faith alone? How is that argument going to help someone get to Heaven and avoid ending up in hell?

It's much more helpful to argue the biblical truth that sin can destroy a believer's hope of eternal life, which equates to arguing for salvation thru faith and works (aka faith and obedience).

They are clearly referring to how you GET SAVED or Initial Salvation.

Poor choice of words, if you ask me (the term "initial salvation" strikes me as oxymoronic). No one is saved or granted salvation until they're judged by Christ on Judgement Day and (hopefully) declared worthy of eternal life. Hence, "justified" or "initial justification" seem to me to be more appropriate terms than "saved" and "initial salvation".

The verses you mention refer to initial justification, which begins with faith, expressed sacramentally by baptism ... followed by sanctification (works/obedience), the result of which is justification. This sequential process is described in 1Cor 6:11 ...

"you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Co 6:11)

 

[Buzzard3]

I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.

Well, he seems to live like a monk, but as far as I know he's neither a priest nor a religious (an officially consecrated "brother", who must take the same vow of celibacy that a Roman Catholic priest does).

 

[Buzzard3]

This is dangerous because James 4:6 says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be sinless is definitely proud and not humble at all ... or at the very least, seriously deluded.

Any man, for example, who looks at a woman or an image of a woman with some degree of lust has sinned ... 99% of Christian men just pleaded guilty to that one.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8)

 

[Buzzard3]

If a person commits sin, they are of the devil.

1 John 3:8
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

How do you interpret that verse? If anyone sins at all, they are "of the devil"?

If someone tells a white-lie, that is technically a sin, so does that means anyone who tells a white-lie is "of the devil"?

If you steal a pen from your workplace, does that mean you are "of the devil"?

If you exceed the speed limit in your car, does that mean you are "of the devil"?

 

[Buzzard3]

The form of the Greek verb in Galatians 5:21 is "present active participle". These are people who habitually commit these kinds of sins.

The point is, Paul warns believers that their sins can destroy their hope of eternal life.

How do explain that dire warning, if Jesus paid the penalty for all their sins?

They have no power to overcome them because they are still dead in their trespass and sin.

How do you know they have "no power to overcome" their sins?
Does a thief have no power to stop himself stealing if he knows a policeman is watching him?

This verse does not mean that anyone who's ever committed murder, been drunk, "rioted", or been jealous of someone can never be saved. Envy, murder, drunkeness and reveling are not the unpardonable sins.

Not all sins are "deadly", but some are (1John 5:16-17). I suggest that murder (which includes abortion) is one of the "deadly" sins - it's not unpardonable, but it certainly has the potential to put one's hope of salvation at risk.

Incidentally, how does one determine what sins are "deadly" - the Bible doesn't elaborate. That would really trouble me ... not knowing what sins are "deadly"!

 

[Valletta]

Interesting, I never knew this.

So the different "Catholics" are called different rites. I always assumed all geographically eastern churches were "Eastern Orthodox" of some form or another. (But I also know there's more than one "Eastern Orthodox". (Coptic (Egyptian), Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox). Then there's regional groups like the Ethiopian church (not sure what their official name is; and there's probably more than one "denomination" in Ethiopia).

Learn something new every day.

Do the different rites have their own Bible translations too? (Thus why the Latin (Roman) has the Latin Vulgate.) Although most Roman Catholics I know use regional language translations and not necessarily the Latin.

The Catholic Church has various rites. Most Catholics follow the "Latin" or "Roman" rite. Catholics use a variety of translations of Bibles which have been translated into numerous languages. At first Greek translations were the most common, but eventually Latin became the language of the literate in Europe and thus a Latin Vulgate ("Vulgate" was derived from "vulgar," or the "common" language) translation was made. No particular Bible is assigned to a rite.

 

[Valletta]

I know Eastern Orthodox have more apocrypha books than Roman Catholics. Now is this the delineating factor between what's considered Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church? Eastern Orthodox clergy can get married too. Are there other Catholic Rites where their clergy can get married?

There is a musician; John Michael Talbot (I'm assuming you know who he is. He's pretty well known.) He had gotten married. Did he do this because he joined a Rite other than Roman Catholic. I know he lives in a commune (don't think they call it a "monastery" because there are single men, single women and married couples with families who live in this facility.

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible all apocryphal texts were rejected. You can read about the Great Schism, but perhaps the most well known difference between The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox is in regard to recognition of the pope. The Catholic Church uses the same 73 books today, in the same order, as was finalized in the late 300s. I think of a rite as being mostly liturgical, all of us are Catholics, we all use the same Catholic Catechism and the different rites are seen as added beauty rather than any kind of source of division. Catholics can attend mass in any Catholic rite.

 

[Buzzard3]

I see the Mosaic law as a reflection of God's eternal moral standard.

Certainly. We're made in the image of God, hence God commands, "“You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1Peter 1:14-17).
Mosaic law was God's standard of holiness - with the death and resurrection of Jesus, God instituted a different standard of holiness, although his moral laws remain.

Now Matthew 5:17; Jesus didn't abolish the law; but he did fulfill it.

The Mosaic laws that Jesus fulfilled were rendered defunct, but the moral laws remained.

Other Mosaic laws were rendered defunct when the gospel spread to the Gentiles. It's interesting that Jewish Christians were expected to adhere to the Mosaic laws that Jesus didn't fulfill, whereas Gentile Christians were not expected to adhere to those laws (at least, that's how it seems to me).

Yes, the Mosaic law is like the "cliff notes" of God's eternal moral standard.

Yes.

I was thinking more Romans 7:25, Romans 8:2 and Romans 10:4. There's a mess of similar verses in Galatians also.
But the one you've quoted here ties into Romans 13:10.

There are different ways of interpreting "the law of Christ", I guess.

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus did not come to abrogate God's Eternal Moral Laws (like do not murder, do not hate, do not commit adultery, do not steal, etc.). Jesus nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us (like the Saturday Sabbath, the death penalty for disobeying God's laws, circumcision, the dietary laws, etc.) (See Colossians 2:14-17). Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17). So Jesus did not come to destroy all forms of Law and its consequences but He came to fulfill them into their true intended purpose with the commands given to us within the New Testament.

Agreed.

These many commands in the NT are based on love. Love God and love your neighbor.

The Ten simply do not exist anymore.

Yes, 9 out of the 10 still apply. The Saturday Sabbath is no longer a command for believers under the New Covenant.

God declared the Sabbath day holy way back in Genesis 2:1-3 ...

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation."

That means keeping the Sabbath day is part of God's eternal moral law ... the only difference is, the Sabbath is now Sunday, not Saturday.

All Ten Commandments therefore remain.

Acts 15 is particularly noteworthy. It was a counsel that said that Gentile Christians do not have to keep the Law of Moses.

That's not what the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 said - it said Gentile Christians don't have to keep all the Mosaic laws that Jewish Christians were expected to keep.

Acts 15 doesn't concern itself with the moral laws of Moses, such as the Ten Commandments, for which there was no controversy. Gentile Christians would have been taught that the moral laws of Moses and the Decalogue apply to all Christians.

Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed.

It doesn't say all 613 laws of Moses have been abolished. It doesn't say the Ten Commandments have been abolished.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.

If you like majestic music; you'd like his music. Very talented fellow! If you're familiar with Michael Card; he's friends with Michael Card. They've collaborated on some albums together.

No. Not Michael Card. I like some of his songs. Then again it is not surprising that most who would be popular in the Christian Music industry would be ecumenical. That is truly sad news to hear, though. Let’s pray and hope God convicts Michael Card’s heart to not fellowship with Talbot (Note: fellowship involves prayer - See Acts 2:42).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No point in reading verses in isolation - any verses that seemingly teach you can be saved by a belief alone are rendered irrelevant by the many verses that teach salvation thru faith and works (Exhibit A: James 2:24).

And you wonder why you might get frustrated at Protestants for doing the same with the works for salvation verses.
If you render certain verses in the Bible as irrelevant, then one is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to believe in.

In Romans 4, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. If we read the story back in Genesis, this is exactly what happened. It says his action of believing was accounted to him as righteousness. So this is a parallel of how believers are INITIALLY SAVED. But hey. If you want to render verses irrelevant in the Bible, then that is no different than most of Christianity out there.

Also, stop an think. The Bible warns believers to flee Idolatry. So it makes sense that there would be believers who would be caught up in idolatry today if the Bible warns us believers about this kind of sin. Now, what group of Christians can you think of who are into idolatry? Well, in your view, there really wouldn’t be any. But when I look out into the world, I see Catholics and the Orthodox church violating the sin of idolatry because the Bible condemns idolatry like other sins. Idolatry according to the Bible is bowing down to statues that men make that God did not tell them to make. They are regarding these statues as having some kind of power attached to some being that has deity like power to answer prayers. This is exactly what you have done with the saints in that you make them out to be gods when you pray to them. This is a violation of the command in how you are only to worship the Lord your God and serve Him only. But even Mary is your co-redeemer (Which is heresy). Only Jesus is the savior and not Mary.

Besides that, what purpose does it serve anyone to argue that certain verses teach that you can be saved by faith alone? How is that argument going to help someone get to Heaven and avoid ending up in hell?

People who believe the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that we are to believe that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day can save a person and or along with calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (seeking forgiveness of one’s past life of sin) can save a person (Romans 10:9) (Romans 10:13) (Luke 18:9-14). Meaning, a person who is about to die on their hospital bed can receive Jesus Christ as their Savior before they have a few seconds to live and be saved by faith alone and or by God’s grace alone. This is a process of salvation without works because it is how a believer is first saved (If you believe those pesky verses you say are irrelevant).

Babies who die will also be saved solely by God’s grace. If Jesus never went to the cross, then all of humanity would have been doomed (including babies).

But AFTER a person is saved by God’s grace in their Initial Salvation, then of course works of faith and holy living living is required because God’s grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). It’s because 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches that God has chosen us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (Which is a CALL of the gospel). Meaning, Sanctification is not the gospel but it is the call of the gospel. Even many Works Alone Salvationists like the Church of Christ get this confused.

It's much more helpful to argue the biblical truth that sin can destroy a believer's hope of eternal life, which equates to arguing for salvation thru faith and works (aka faith and obedience).

One can obey by believing in their Initial Salvation and yet it would not be regarded as a work because it is just one simply believing and throwing themselves before the mercy of the Lord for salvation. This is what you fail to understand because the Catholic Church has made sure that you will not accept certain verses in your Bible. No offense of course. I see everything the RCC adds to the Bible as man made traditions. However, Jesus warned against the traditions of men. In fact, when you do a Bible search on the key word “traditions” in the Bible, it has more of a negative meaning to that word primarily. Only one time does this word have a positive meaning and this is simply in reference to the teachings of Scripture and not some imaginary oral traditions of the RCC that were later written down.

Poor choice of words, if you ask me (the term "initial salvation" strikes me as oxymoronic). No one is saved or granted salvation until they're judged by Christ on Judgement Day and (hopefully) declared worthy of eternal life. Hence, "justified" or "initial justification" seem to me to be more appropriate terms than "saved" and "initial salvation".

Most Christians live out their faith and it is not as common that most simply accept Jesus as their Savior on their death bed. Hence, the added emphasis on how we will be judged by our works at the Judgment. It is not contradictory to Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-5, Romans 11:6, etcetera. I mean, you cannot honestly read and believe Romans 11:6 with a straight face in your current belief system. But then again you said verses like these are just irrelevant, which means you are admitting that only parts of the Bible are true to the way you want to see it. So you cherry pick the verses in the Bible you want to believe in. This is not going to work come Judgment day because Jesus said if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). Even Jesus taught at times the emphasis of being saved by God’s grace over just doing good alone (without God’s grace) in Luke 18:9-14. Jesus said that the Tax Collector who cried out, and said, God be merciful to me a sinner. The Pharisee was talking to God and said he was glad he was not like others who were sinful in conduct. But Jesus said the Tax Collector was justified and not the Pharisee. The Pharisee was boasting in himself and making it only about what he did alone and he did not acknowledge God’s grace and ability of God to do the good work through His life. He did not give God the glory both in God’s saving grace and in Sanctification (Which also is a part of salvation).

The verses you mention refer to initial justification, which begins with faith, expressed sacramentally by baptism ... followed by sanctification (works/obedience), the result of which is justification.

I am aware that Catholics and the Church of Christ believe in how they hold to a man made tradition that says that you need to first be water baptized to be initially saved. It’s why Modern Bibles (which are secretly Vatican bibles) have altered passages like in Acts 8 involving the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. Verse 37 is removed. It says, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37). So this truth is removed and destroys the importance of how we need to first believe in Jesus for salvation. The King James Bible has the proper reading. But of course the RCC almost killed King James and his translation with a super bomb. Of course, Westcott and Hort who were supposed to do an update of the KJB had secretly pulled a switcheroo with an entirely different underlying texts (i.e., Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus - Catholic manuscripts) and they created their own Greek text and their own English translation of that text (i.e., the Revised Version) with Unitarians on their team.

In one Catholic Bible I seen by Theo Hikmat on a YouTube video has a Catholic dictionary in this RCC Bible. In this dictionary it says to the Catholic layperson that it is forbidden to read the King James Version of the Bible. Yes, yes. I know. There is a 2020 KJV Catholic Bible that came out. But this was not too long in history that Theo Hikmat revealed this truth. The point here is that Catholics generally hated the King James Bible because it was in opposition to their Catholic manuscripts that they preferred. There are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic church and many Protestants are simply clueless like lambs to the slaughter of these kinds of changes. Even when I point out such changes that are obvious some are blinded spiritually to see what I am talking about. It’s as if they don’t want to see it.

Catholics used to kill men like William Tyndale because of his spread of the Scriptures to the common man in English.
John Rodgers also a creator of a Textus Receptus Bible was also killed by Catholics.
The Bible was even kept out of your understanding for many years in the fact that it was spoken in Latin and the lay person did not even understand it. Also, no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2. Again, this is a major red flag to me in that your church sought to keep the Word of God away from you because they obviously did not want to lose control of the power of getting folks to just believe the man made traditions vs. just believing the Bible alone. Because if they read their Bible, they would see that these practices were unbiblical. Hence, why they kept the Bible out of their hands for so many centuries. Even not too long ago here at CF, I have argued with Catholics before about how non-Catholics should not read and study the Bible on their own and they must consult a priest to get the proper understanding instead. So again, this is a tradition that has not fully died out. Then again, if you knew Bible history from an unbiased perspective, you would be able to see this.
But I am sure the Catholic Church has their own version of the events of history on some of these matters.

This sequential process is described in 1Cor 6:11 ...

"you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Co 6:11)

Romans 3:24

​

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”​

John 1:12

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:“​

Romans 4:3

”For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”​

So where do we see the example of Abraham being justified by a belief?

Genesis 15:5-6

5 “And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,​

and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,​

So shall thy seed be.​

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.“​

​

So as we can see above in this passage, Abraham believed GOD in regards to the promise in that His seed will be as in number like the stars in the sky. Abraham simply believed here and God accounted this belief to him as righteousness. Simply by a belief alone.

This is a parallel of how we are first saved by God’s grace under the New Covenant.

Romans 4:2

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”​

Again, this has to be in our Initial Salvation. If not, then we would have a contradiction in our Bible.

Ephesians 2:8-9 is in context to Initial Salvation. The same is true for Titus 3:5 is you were to read the context. So this proves that Paul was concerned with how to GET SAVED. It is the only conclusion to draw unless one is a Protestant and one wants to only believe these verses by Paul and ignore or twist all the verses on Sanctification involving the secondary aspect of our salvation; or unless one is a Catholic and they want to ignore all the verses that Protestants accept.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be sinless is definitely proud and not humble at all ... or at the very least, seriously deluded.

Okay. Before you reply to this post, I would like for you to read VERY SLOWLY the following pieces of Scripture in the King James Bible.

1 Peter 4:1-2
Galatians 5:24
2 Corinthians 7:1

When you read these verses above, what do they appear to be teaching?
Please keep in mind if you have no biased belief here these verses do appear to teach we can overcome sin in this life.
Well, that is if you believe these verses above.
Forget about what your experience or your thinking says.
Just read these verses with the most plain and child like manner and it is obvious in what they say.

Any man, for example, who looks at a woman or an image of a woman with some degree of lust has sinned ... 99% of Christian men just pleaded guilty to that one.

This is true, but Christians CAN overcome this by employing the methods that God has given us.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8)

Proverbs 30:20 says:
“Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.”

What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8 in regards to time; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Why? Well, most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned as a part of their old life before coming to Christ (Regardless of whether they are “OSAS,” a “Sin and still be saved” type believer, or a “Conditional Salvationist”). So this clearly is a “gnostic belief” that John was warning the brethren about (See 1 John 2:26). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,

"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NET).​

In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their future sins are paid for by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

John prescribes that we do not think that sin is an illusion, and we are automatically saved, but John is telling us to "sin not" and go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins so as to be forgiven of sin and to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

You can say that John is talking about a break of fellowship by one's sins and not a loss of salvation, but that would not be consistent with Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

 

[Valletta]

I am aware that Catholics and the Church of Christ believe in how they hold to a man made tradition that says that you need to first be water baptized to be initially saved. It’s why Modern Bibles (which are secretly Vatican bibles) have altered passages like in Acts 8 involving the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. Verse 37 is removed. It says, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37). So this truth is removed and destroys the importance of how we need to first believe in Jesus for salvation. The King James Bible has the proper reading. But of course the RCC almost killed King James and his translation with a super bomb. Of course, Westcott and Hort who were supposed to do an update of the KJB had secretly pulled a switcheroo with an entirely different underlying texts (i.e., Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus - Catholic manuscripts) and they created their own Greek text and their own English translation of that text (i.e., the Revised Version) with Unitarians on their team.

In one Catholic Bible I seen by Theo Hikmat on a YouTube video has a Catholic dictionary in this RCC Bible. In this dictionary it says to the Catholic layperson that it is forbidden to read the King James Version of the Bible. Yes, yes. I know. There is a 2020 KJV Catholic Bible that came out. But this was not too long in history that Theo Hikmat revealed this truth. The point here is that Catholics generally hated the King James Bible because it was in opposition to their Catholic manuscripts that they preferred. There are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic church and many Protestants are simply clueless like lambs to the slaughter of these kinds of changes. Even when I point out such changes that are obvious some are blinded spiritually to see what I am talking about. It’s as if they don’t want to see it.

Catholics used to kill men like William Tyndale because of his spread of the Scriptures to the common man in English.
John Rodgers also a creator of a Textus Receptus Bible was also killed by Catholics.
The Bible was even kept out of your understanding for many years in the fact that it was spoken in Latin and the lay person did not even understand it. Also, no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2. Again, this is a major red flag to me in that your church sought to keep the Word of God away from you because they obviously did not want to lose control of the power of getting folks to just believe the man made traditions vs. just believing the Bible alone. Because if they read their Bible, they would see that these practices were unbiblical. Hence, why they kept the Bible out of their hands for so many centuries.

Please do not spread falsehoods about the Catholic Church, Most of your misinformation about Catholics could have been avoided with minimal research. Our Catechism is available to all, and I strongly suggest you quote the Catechism as to actual Catholic teaching, which you are free to dispute or disagree with. First, Catholics believe God can save people any way God wants to. The Bible says we are saved through Baptism, and Catholic believe the Bible to be the Word of God and indeed believe and today the way the majority of Christians are normally first saved is through Baptism: 1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE
Contrary to your assertion, Catholics are allowed to read the KJV. But we must realize that is not an approved translation. As to the Word of God, the Catholic Church has used top scholars to get the best translations of the Bible, not just Catholics but Jews and Protestant scholars as well. Realize the KJV contained many errors and that books were removed. Unfortunately much of the KJV came from a Greek text prepared rather hurriedly by a Catholic named Erasmus. Lacking all of the original Greek text Erasmus actually "back translated" lines from a Latin version, and the Greek texts were not the best (not as true as some to the original). Your assertion that Catholics were not allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War II is as false as can be. I have a family Bible maybe twenty feet away that dates back to the 1800s. We all owe a great debt to the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. The truth is that many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people and have spread the Gospel century after century. After Latin surpassed Greek as to the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. The Catholic Church has strongly defended the Bible, and took action over the centuries to prevent those who would add or subtract from the Word of God. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims, they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible.

​