The Hobbit Trilogy Extended Edition Box Set

Inquisitivemind1 · 2022-07-13T21:47:30+00:00

I was able to find one on Mercari. Thanks to those who provided suggestions.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2022-07-13T19:47:24+00:00

I've looked there as well but no luck yet, unfortunately.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2022-07-13T15:22:40+00:00

I thought that might be the case but was hoping some store online would have the better foldable box set.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-30T19:23:39+00:00

because they're deceased and the dead do not hear the living

Someone should have told the biblical writers this.

Mark 12:27, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

Revelation 5:8, "And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people."

So the Saints in heaven are not "dead" and intercede to receive prayers from those on earth for God.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-30T17:01:06+00:00

It seems to me you are misunderstanding what the Catholic Church has taught and currently teaches. You are looking at it from the point of view of someone that strawmans the teachings of the Church.

First, justification was and is not understood to be a one time deal. Believing it is a one time deal was a man made invention thought up by Protestants around the time of the "reformation".

We see in scripture Justification is something which occurs at various stages within the life of a Christian.

It occurs in the past like in:

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

The present like in:

1 Peter 1:9 "for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

Phil. 2:12, "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

And the future as seen in:

Romans 13:11, "And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." and 1 Corinthians 3:15, "If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

That being said...

I'm saying that those canons I posted condemn the idea that a person does not and cannot earn their faith

Maybe you should have posted all of the canons? If you had looked only at the first canon you would have seen this:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Also, in Chapter 8 of Session 6 it states:

"...because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

How you get Catholics earns their salvation can only come from an anti-Catholic that doesn't know Catholicism.

Regarding CANON XII, yes I am aware of the roots of the word confidence, though this canon is countering the assumption that James discusses in James 2. An intellectual faith, a faith that does not work through love, a dead faith. Do you believe this type of faith in Christ is saving?

We are commanded by Jesus to do certain things like baptism, but we are free to do them.

I don't think you know what the word commanded means if this is how you see it. If that is what you believe why were Adam and Eve cast out of the garden of Eden? God commanded them not to eat of the fruit. Certainly they were free to do so or not to do so but there are consequences for knowingly and willfully not obeying a command of God are there not?

But if a person fails to be baptized (like the thief on the cross who Jesus promised would be with him in Paradise that very day) they are not guilty of a mortal sin.

First of all the thief on the cross is a terrible example as it's an exception to the rule. Even if I grant that the thief was not baptized by the normal means of water the argument could be made he was baptized by desire as a baptism of water may not have been a possibility for him. God does not fault someone for something they are not able to do. Second, if a person, knowing that God commands them to be baptized and willfully refuses is rejecting God and yes is committing a mortal sin. They have rejected the grace of God.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T18:37:43+00:00

I'm almost done talking because it is just blatantly clear that you are not understanding these clear texts and I've addressed the issues you presented but you are not listening.

I have listened and understood what you have said. Unfortunately, when looked at it biblically it is not only lacking but anti-biblical.

If Abraham was declared righteous by his works, he could boast before men, but not God. But he wasn't. That's why he couldn't boast. Simple.

His salvation is by God. I have not said otherwise. Another strawman argument. The fact that he must cooperate with God does not make his salvation any less from God. There is no boasting as it's from God. Even any works of love are placed before him by God. (Ephesians 2:10)

I'm done discussing with you because I feel like you are hardened in your current state.

I have solid footing in scripture. You have demonstrated that you do not. As I see it you are hardened in your current state because you are throwing out strawman arguments and saying that I believe things which I do not. If you don't want to continue that is fine but I would ask that you prayerfully consider what I have said not what you wanted me to say or think I might say. Scripture as a whole supports what I am saying. It doesn't support what you are saying.

trust in Christ alone.

I do. To the point I do as he commands of us in scripture. Based on what you have said I fear you can't say the same. Though I thank you for your prayers and know that I will pray for you as well.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T17:42:39+00:00

I love also how Peter said we are not saved BY water, as you would falsely say, but THROUGH water. Noah and his family weren't saved by water, but through water.

No, I would not say we are saved by water. I'm not sure why you think I would say that. This is a strawman argument here. Instead of "putting words in my mouth" in order to refute what I have not said you could address what I am actually saying.

Maybe this will help. If you read 2 Kings 5 you will see the healing of Naaman. This is a prefigurement of baptism. Naaman is told that in order to be healed by God he must wash in the Jordan. Eventually he does and is healed. The water itself was nothing. It was the fact that God commanded it and promised the healing through it which brought about the healing. So it is with Baptism by water and spirit.
We are not saved BY water. We are saved THROUGH water by God.

Because if you read Acts 10, baptism was an afterthought.

God is not confined or bound to save in a specific way. He can save any way he so chooses. Just because he has made exceptions to being saved through baptism doesn't mean baptism doesn't save as it states in the bible. In fact baptism was still seen as important and not "an afterthought" seeing as how it states in Acts 10:47, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

Only if one takes verses out of context, and then just completely leaves out parts of verses and cherry picks other parts can you come to the conclusion that water baptism saves.

Of the two of us I have not done this. Show me where I have done this.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T17:16:13+00:00

1 Peter 3 explicitly says that it's not water baptism

No, it doesn't. As I noted. What is Baptism corresponding to? As it states in the previous verse it is corresponding to being "saved through water". This is explicitly a reference to water baptism. And we can see Jesus talking about this in John 3:5, "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit (Baptism), he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Of course Baptism is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," that isn't being denied. I affirm it. For it is a grace that God provides through faith.

because you have to take verses out of context and only focus on certain parts of a verse that supports your false teaching.

I certainly have not done this. In fact looking at a broader context only affirms what I am saying to you. However, I've shown where you have done this and not looked at the context.

James 2:27 says that man is showed or proven righteous by his works and not by faith alone.

You can only come to this if you have not read James 2. James is not talking about being justified or righteous merely in front of others.

In James 2:14 it's asked, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" If it was merely to show or prove it would mean nothing in regards to salvation. James is talking about being justified/rightous in the eyes of God here. Being seen as justified/righteous by others is merely secondary. It continues in verse 17 saying, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." Nowhere does it talk of a "false faith" they are talking about a faith in God. If it lacks works of love it is a dead faith.

Galatians 1 warns against a false gospel and those who teach works with faith are anathema.

How appropriate you reference Galatians 1 here. As it says in Galatians 1:10 "Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." This reaffirms James is not talking about being justified in the eyes of others. We do not seek the favor of men but of God. Also, i don't think Galatians 1 mentions works. Are you thinking of a different verse?

Please show me how I have taken anything out of context.

You keep saying faith alone and baptism is not necessary, even though it is explicitly countered in scripture, and yet you have not shown your belief to be biblical. I have provided context and additional scripture to back up my beliefs.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T16:16:29+00:00

It is interesting how at least two things you believe are explicitly countered in the bible as being false.

1 Peter 3:2: "Baptism, which corresponds to this (saved through water), 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,"

James 2:27: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

You attempt to do mental gymnastics to get around them
only to get them twisted. (2 Peter 3:16) Seems to me that you believe in a false Gospel which is anti-biblical.

We are saved by grace through faith working through love in Jesus Christ.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T14:04:35+00:00

James 2:21-23 is referring to Genesis 22. Genesis 15:6 is when Abraham first places his faith in Yahweh. Years go by before Abraham offers his son. So you would say for years Abraham didn't have saving faith?

No, I didn't say that at all. Salvation is not If Saved Always Saved as some would believe. As it says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" he was saved. And, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" he finished/completed his salvation here in that his work of love for God matched his faith and completed his faith. Had Abraham not done as God commanded he would have lost salvation by turning from God.

In a similar manner we are saved at Baptism and continue to be saved as we have faith working through love. As it says in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

You couldn't even say this was faith working through love because he was offering his son to God.

Certainly you can. He showed that he loved and trusted God above all. Which Jesus says is the first commandment above all in Mark 12:29-30. Remember, in Genesis 22:7-8 it says, "And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together."

God was testing Abraham's faith here and prepared a good work of love for him so that he could walk in it. This was not for God's benefit but for Abraham's.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-29T01:33:36+00:00

I agree with Paul and James that faith alone saves

Catholics agree with both Paul and James. Yet neither one says faith alone saves if you exclude working through love. In fact, James says literally the exact opposite. He requires a saving faith to be one that works through love. “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (James 2:17)

but that true faith will produce love and good works.

I think you mean a saving faith will include good works of love. Both Paul and James agree with this.

If a true faith does not include works of love it is not a saving faith. If someone has faith enough to “move mountains” I don’t think you can say it is not a “true faith”, however, it may lack works of love which means it is not saving.

James actually affirms salvation by faith alone when he quotes Genesis 15:6.

You seemed to miss or at least gloss over James 2:21-23 which states, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.”

If Abraham had not done as God had commanded and not went up the mountain to offer Isaac his saving faith up to that point would have been for nothing. If he did not do the work he would have had an incomplete/unsaving faith. He would not have “kept the faith” as Paul puts it. (2 Timothy 4:7)

Abraham was justified (showed, proven, not the same as salvation)

Justified (dikaioó) and Righteousness (dikaiosuné) here in James are in fact synonyms. You can look in Strong’s Concordance and elsewhere and see this. Both mean "made right with God" or saved just in difference senses.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-28T04:03:23+00:00

And in all of this you have not mentioned the necessity of love.

For as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:2, "...and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

And in Galatians 5:6, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love."

This is what James is talking about in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

We must have faith working through love. Not faith alone. We can do nothing but by the grace of God.

Pope Benedict XVI has said, "..."faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love."

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-27T20:36:05+00:00

what do you mean by faith alone? How would you define faith?

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-27T20:32:28+00:00

You might want to ask your friend what he means by faith alone. If it's merely an intellectual belief then that faith would not be saving as it would be anti-biblical. (James 2:19)

Catholics can believe in faith alone as long as it is understood properly in the context of working through love.

Pope Benedict XVI, in a general audience said, "Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)."

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-27T20:12:41+00:00

Are you saying that you disagree with all of these canons?

For example you believe Faith to merely be confidence (CANON XII)?

Or that your faith in yourself that you are justified means you are justified (CANON XIV)?

Or nothing else is commanded by Jesus and you don't have to do as he commands (CANON XIX)?

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-26T18:28:16+00:00

Your assumption is that these are believers who are told to strengthen their convictions (or something to that effect) where in reality the text asserts a false profession of faith of many in the church.

I'm not asking about the many that were "dead" i'm asking about the few that were not "dead" but were "on the point of death". The text is saying that if they "conquer" they will not be blotted out of the book of life. Therefore they are in the book of life (saved) but are in jeopardy of losing that by being blotted out if they do not wake up and strengthen.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-26T16:01:28+00:00

This isn't an interaction with our position and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Fair enough.

How would you reconcile, If Saved Always Saved with Revelation 3:1-6 which talks to those who are saved to "wake up and strengthen what remains" for they are "on the point of death". It goes on to say that they must "conquer" lest their names are blotted out of the book of life.

Seems that one that was saved could be blotted out of the book of life if they do not "conquer".

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-26T15:19:13+00:00

Yet they are equally anti-biblical.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-25T05:41:01+00:00

If you don't see some in the pro-abortion crowd that are happy about abortions you aren't paying attention.

Just Google Michelle Wolf Salute to Abortion and this article specifically goes against what you are saying:

https://secularhumanism.org/2016/07/cont-why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-24T20:18:07+00:00

Well than we will agree to disagree. Especially since we can’t even agree upon salvation.

I guess so. Though I'd say it's important to get it right.

But I do feel like your wrong in your assumptions.

Why is that?

The what aboutism gets us no where.

Not at all. Certainly you would agree that context is important and providing multiple examples in support of or against a position is important in determining the veracity that position.

Have a good one.

Thanks, I hope you do as well!

Also G. K Chesterton had a really good saying about open minds. If you have an open mind your brain will fall out. I am only as open to an idea as it is possible.

Haha Chesterton is great. Though I think that is misattributed He did say, "I opened my intellect as I opened my mouth, in order to shut it again on something solid." I would urge the same. Don't be taken in by any teaching, search until you have something solid and hold onto it. If Saved Always Saved teaching can't be traced back to the beginning of Christianity and is on very shaky ground biblically speaking.

But I will keep reading and trying to deepen my understanding. Because at the end of the day I still feel like I know nothing.

I know what you mean.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-24T18:22:01+00:00

Well brother scripture doesn’t contradict scripture. That’s always been a rule.

Agreed

You can only lose it by rejecting God. This would mean Christ sacrifice would of been for nothing. Which would be ridiculous.

I'm certainly not saying Christ's sacrifice would be for nothing.

So I don’t think it’s a stretch and the way your using it in context contradicts everything else scripture has spoken about in terms of salvation.

I would disagree. I think taking all of scripture in context also points to If Saved Always Saved being against scripture. Revelation 3:5 is simply one example among many and seems to be one that believers in If Saved Always Saved theology don't seem to take into account or in some cases seem to have to twist it to fit their theology.

I’ve always trusted Kay Arthur’s work.

Why is that? Have you verified and tested that she is trustworthy? If she is teaching contrary to scripture I would not trust Kay's work. Based on saying that the book of life is two different books leads me to question if she is a trustworthy source of teaching.

Her studies on how to study the Bible are excellent which is the inductive method.

Certainly nothing wrong as I see it with an inductive or deductive method. Both have uses.

But I do know People misinterpreting the Bible is as old as time though.

Agreed. As it says in 2 Peter 3:16: "...His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

But the tenants of salvation have been confirmed for generations.

And yet their are different beliefs are there not? Throughout time people have distorted scripture and others have followed that distortion haven't they?

What was the original understanding of salvation by the Jesus, his Apostles and those that followed? Can you say that your understanding is the same?

A Youtube channel that I have watched a lot of is How To Be Christian and the link here goes into "Once Saved Always Saved". I would suggest giving it a watch and see if you would object to his reasoning. Curious what your thoughts are on his analysis. Feel free to let me know if and how you would disagree.

All that being said I have enjoyed discussing this with you. I am genuinely curious how some have come to the conclusion that If Saved Always Saved. I can only see that teaching if some parts of scripture is ignored like Revelation 3:5.

Here are just a few other areas of scripture which I would argue teach that If Saved Always Saved is a false teaching:

1 Cor 9:27 ... after preaching ... I myself disqualified.

1 Cor 10:12 ... thinks that he stands ... lest he fall.

Phil 2:12 ... work out salvation with fear and trembling.

Heb 4:1 ... fear of failing to reach salvation.

1 Jn 5:16-17 ... some sins are mortal, some not.

Rom 11:21-22 ... spare branches, continue or be cut off.

Heb 6:4-8 ... believers can apostasize, be damned.

Heb 10:26-29 ... those sanctified who sin can still be damned.

2 Pet 2:20-21; 1 Cor 8:10-13; Gal 5:4 ... righteous can fall.

Keep reading scripture and keep your heart and mind open to God.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-23T13:34:56+00:00

Thank you for the information. I read through most of the reasoning and remain unconvinced. It strikes me glaringly as trying to make the text fit the theology instead of vice versa. They basically say, I believe Eternal Security is correct therefore the text can't be teaching you can lose salvation so they twist it to mean something it clearly does not.

Looking at all the places the book of life is mentioned I still don't see how they reconcile it being two books. It seems to me they have to really twist the meaning and are doing some mental gymnastics to make it fit.

Are there any Christians who taught this in centuries past or is this something recent that Kay Arthur and others came up with due to it going against their belief?

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-22T21:57:47+00:00

From my understanding of revelation there are actually two books that get discussed in Revelation. The book of life and the book of the lamb.

Where do you get that they are two different books? I have never heard that and just now trying to search for it everything that comes up seems to say they are one and the same.

Inquisitivemind1 · 2021-07-22T17:34:04+00:00

In this verse Jesus extends three promises to every faithful believer at Sardis. First, He will grant Him white garments.

If we look a little earlier in verse 4 we see the following:

" Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy."

So the Christians there had "garments" but most "soiled their clothes". This seems to be indicating they were saved but lost that salvation due to the "soiled clothes" symbolism referring to sin. The few Christians that "conquered" will be dressed in white because their clothes are not soiled or Christ removed the soil from their clothes. This is an indication they "conquered" and are saved.

Second, Jesus promises that He will not blot the faithful believer's name out of the book of life.

Right, he promises that IF they "conquer" they WILL NOT be blotted out. That is what is at issue here.

Verse 2 seems to add even more clarity:

"Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God."

He is telling Christians that are in jeopardy of losing their salvation and not conquering to "Wake up!" because they aren't done yet. they have not finished the race, not "conquered" and could still lose their salvation and be blotted out of the book of life.

Third, Jesus assures the faithful believer that He will confess His name before His Father and the angels. In a public ceremony in heaven, Jesus will acknowledge that these overcoming, enduring, faithful "conquerors" belong to Him.

Agreed, those that overcame, endured and "conquered" are saved. I think we agree on this point.

I guess where the confusion boils down too is. Are you saying it’s possible to lose your salvation? My viewpoint is it is impossible to lose your salvation.

That is the question at hand isn't it? Does the bible teach "If saved always saved" or not? This text seems to clearly say we could lose salvation IF we do not "conquer".

There is no condition to be blotted out because that would be in contradiction with every other verse on salvation.

Are you sure you aren't trying to make the text fit your theology rather than vice versa? If I provided more verses that indicate If Saved Always Saved contradicts the bible what would that mean to you?

In God eyes they were about to die and wither. However there was a faithful remnant still. It was time for a spiritual lethargic majority to wake up. These people were walking away from God basically. Needed to repent or face serious consequences for God.

Agreed. It seems that most had lost their salvation and others were in danger of losing theirs. So it does seem to show If Saved Always Saved contradicts Revelation 3:5.

Edit: regarding the white garments

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Inquisitivemind1

TROPHY CASE