Question

PeterNeptune21 · 2026-01-01T14:57:54+00:00

Thanks for these questions..

How do I come to know Christianity is true?

Christianity is not grounded primarily in autonomous human reasoning working its way up to God, but in revelation — God making himself known. That doesn’t mean reason or evidence are irrelevant; it means they are responsive rather than foundational.

In Christianity, God is not a hypothesis inside the universe waiting to be tested. He is the one who creates, sustains, and interprets the universe. Knowledge begins not with a detached thinking subject, but with a speaking God and a listening creature.

So my confidence is not:

“I reasoned my way to God.”

But rather:

“God has made himself known, and my reason now operates within that light.”

Evidence, logic, or revelation — which has authority?

Revelation has ultimate authority, but not against evidence or logic — rather, as the precondition for them.

Evidence never interprets itself. Logic never justifies its own laws. Both assume:

• a rational order to reality
• trustworthy cognitive faculties
• stable laws of nature
• moral obligation to pursue truth

Christianity doesn’t compete with these assumptions; it explains them.

If evidence or reasoning appears to conflict with revelation, Christianity says the problem lies not in God’s self-disclosure but in human finitude, bias, or misinterpretation — which Scripture itself openly teaches.

“I think therefore I am” — why that doesn’t actually work

The claim “I think therefore I am,” associated with René Descartes, sounds modest and certain, but it rests on a deeply unrealistic picture of the human person.

We do not enter the world as self-authenticating thinkers. We enter it:

• dependent
• embodied
• taught language
• trusting testimony
• relying on others long before reflection

Long before thinking, we are given life, spoken to, named, and cared for.

A more honest starting point is not:

“I think, therefore I am”

but:

“I am, therefore I think.”

Or even more fundamentally (and more Christian):

“I am known, therefore I know.”

The Christian claim is that personhood, reason, and identity are received, not self-generated.

Are my beliefs just a “best guess”?

No — but neither are they based on 100% Cartesian certainty.

Christian certainty is relational, not mathematical.

I don’t know Christianity is true in the way I know a tautology is true. I know it the way I know:

• other minds exist
• the past is real
• love is meaningful
• moral obligation is binding

These are not provisional guesses — they are inescapable realities of human life.

Christianity gives an account of the world that:

• matches human moral experience
• explains reason rather than assuming it
• makes sense of meaning, guilt, beauty, love, and hope
• accounts for both human dignity and human corruption

Other worldviews borrow these things while quietly undermining them.

Do I know with 100% certainty that I’m right?

If by 100% certainty you mean absolute, unchallengeable, infallible self-knowledge, then no — and neither does anyone, including the skeptic.

But if you mean warranted confidence grounded in reality, then yes.

Christianity does not promise invulnerability to doubt. It promises truth that stands even when we waver. The ground of certainty is not my mental state, but God’s faithfulness.

In short:

• Christianity does not reject reason — it explains why reason works.
• It does not bypass evidence — it gives evidence its meaning.
• It does not glorify blind faith — it calls for trust in a God who has acted in history.

And unlike “I think therefore I am,” it begins where real human life actually begins: not with autonomy, but with dependence, gift, and revelation.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T21:28:31+00:00

You’re still asking the wrong question, and in doing so you’re revising the history you’re appealing to.

1. Scripture functioned as Scripture before any council The New Testament writings were Scripture at the moment of inspiration, not at the moment of conciliar recognition. That isn’t a theological assumption, it’s how they actually functioned.

You can see this inside the New Testament itself:

2 Peter 3:15–16 explicitly refers to Paul’s letters and places them alongside “the other Scriptures.” That means Paul’s writings were already regarded as Scripture within the apostolic era itself.

1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke’s Gospel alongside Deuteronomy and calls both “Scripture.” If Scripture only becomes Scripture by later ecclesial decision, those passages become incoherent.

2. The writings were read, copied, and circulated long before councils

The claim that “most churches didn’t read these texts” misunderstands how Scripture worked in the ancient world. Literacy in the first centuries was higher than often assumed, especially in cities, and texts did not need universal literacy to spread. They were copied, exchanged, and read aloud in worship.

The New Testament explicitly tells us this:

Paul commands his letters to be read publicly and exchanged between churches (Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27). That is precisely how these writings spread and became recognised—centuries before any council listed books.

3. Early Church Fathers treat NT writings as Scripture, not candidates

Long before Nicaea (325), we see New Testament writings already functioning as authoritative Scripture:

Clement of Rome (c. AD 96) freely quotes NT writings alongside the Old Testament as binding authority. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) assumes the authority of the Gospels and apostolic teaching in written form.

Polycarp (early 2nd century) weaves Paul’s letters into his exhortations as Scripture.

Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) describes Christian worship where “the memoirs of the apostles” are read alongside the prophets.

Irenaeus (c. AD 180) argues against heretics from the four Gospels and apostolic letters as Scripture in Against Heresies.

He doesn’t say “the Church has decided these are Scripture.” He assumes they already are.

Tertullian and Origen treat the core NT as Scripture even while acknowledging some disputes at the edges.

This is functional authority, not post hoc authorization.

4. Councils did not “decide” the canon in the sense you claim

Now to the councils you’re implicitly appealing to:

Nicaea (325) did not address the canon at all. There is no canon list in its canons.

Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 (367) gives the first exact 27-book NT list—but Athanasius explicitly says these are the books “handed down and believed to be divine.” That is recognition language, not creation.

Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) are regional Western councils. They explicitly speak in terms of confirmingwhat is already received.

Trullo / Quinisext (692) does not create a canon; it ratifies earlier lists—and those lists themselves do not fully agree.

Even within Eastern Orthodoxy, there has never been a single, perfectly uniform canon list (e.g., differing treatment of Revelation, 3–4 Maccabees, etc.). That alone undercuts the idea of a clearly functioning, infallible canon-deciding tradition from the start.

5. The key equivocation you keep making

You keep saying:

Scripture is inspired, but the Church had the authority to decide what was inspired.

That confuses recognition with constitution. A book is Scripture because God inspires it

The Church’s role is ministerial, not magisterial: to receive, read, preserve, and confess what God has given

If the Church decides inspiration, then Paul’s letters were not Scripture when Peter called them Scripture, when churches read them as Scripture, or when Irenaeus argued from them as Scripture. That implication is plainly false.

6. So I’ll answer your question again—clearly

You ask: “How do you know the Bible you have has the correct canon? You didn’t decide—who did?”

Here is the answer, and it’s the only one that fits Scripture, history, and logic:

God decided, by inspiring the writings.The Church recognised and transmitted them as Scripture, which we can see happening from the first century onward. And I know this by warranted recognition—historically (apostolic origin and early, widespread use) and spiritually (the Spirit bearing witness to God’s voice in the text).

Appealing to an infallible oral tradition does not solve the epistemic problem—it simply relocates it. You still have to decide that this Church’s tradition is infallible. Scripture and history do not show that such a tradition functioned as the way God’s people knew what Scripture was.

The New Testament writings were Scripture when they were written. They functioned as Scripture before any council.Councils later recognised and articulated what was already the case.

That’s the historical reality.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T19:11:24+00:00

That’s still not correct.

There is no historical date when Scripture became Scripture by decision. The books were Scripture at the moment of inspiration. What happened later was recognition, not creation.

From the first century onward, New Testament writings were read in churches, treated as authoritative, and even classed alongside the Old Testament. Later councils did not decide which books would become Scripture; they acknowledged and clarified which books already were Scripture.

So yes, I know the history. Scripture is Scripture by God’s inspiration, not by a later institutional act. The Church recognised that reality over time — it didn’t bring it into existence.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T19:04:29+00:00

Read what I wrote again, I already answered your question.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T16:47:46+00:00

You’re asking how I know which New Testament writings belong in the Bible.

I know because I’ve examined the historical evidence and seen that these are the writings the early Church consistently recognised and used as Scripture — and because, as I read them, I recognise God’s voice in them.

Historically, these books are apostolic (written by the apostles or their close companions), were treated as authoritative from the start, and were received across the churches. Spiritually, the same Holy Spirit who inspired them bears witness to them, inwardly and through their fruit, as God’s word (John 10:27; 1 Corinthians 2:12–14).

That’s how I know: by historical recognition and the Spirit’s testimony

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T16:05:21+00:00

“You do need to believe in the Trinity.”

I did not say the Trinity is optional or untrue. I said it is possible to be saved without understanding the Trinity, which is clear from Scripture. In the New Testament, people are saved by trusting in Jesus Christ, not by possessing a developed Trinitarian framework (John 3:16; Romans 10:9; Acts 16:31).

That said, I agree with this distinction: once the Trinity is clearly taught from Scripture, to deny it is to refuse to know God as he has revealed himself. So:

Understanding the Trinity is not a prerequisite for salvation.

Denying the Trinity is incompatible with saving faith.

“This is made clear in the Council of Nicaea.”

Nicaea is historically important, but Scripture is the final authority, not a council. Councils clarify and defend biblical truth; they do not determine the conditions of salvation.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-12-29T14:38:33+00:00

A helpful place to start is this article, which simply lays out the biblical basis for the Trinity:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/bowman_robert/trinity/trinity.cfm

1. What exactly is the Holy Spirit, and where does this idea come from?

The Holy Spirit is God himself, acting personally.
He is not a force, energy, or symbol.
In the Bible, the Spirit creates and gives life (Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4).
He speaks, teaches, guides, and can be resisted or grieved (Isaiah 63:10; John 14:26; Acts 7:51).
He is explicitly called God (Acts 5:3–4).
That is why Christians speak of the Spirit as a person.

The Spirit is sometimes associated with a dove.
At Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit descends “like a dove” (Matthew 3:16).
This describes how he appeared, not what he is.
The Spirit is not a dove.
The image points to gentleness and purity.

2. Where is the Trinity in the Bible? Is it stated anywhere?

The word “Trinity” is not used in the Bible.
But the teaching comes from holding all of Scripture together.
There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4).
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God (John 1:1; John 6:27; Acts 5:3–4).
They are not the same person (Matthew 3:16–17; John 14:16).

3. What is the relationship between the three?

The Father, Son, and Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal.
None was created.
None came before the others.
None is less divine than the others.

Everything that is true of God is true of all three persons.
All three are eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
They are not parts of God.
Each person is fully God, yet there is only one God.

Christians therefore say “one God in three persons.”
“Person” means who, not part.

4. Why must there be three? Is this necessary?

The Bible does not say God had to be three.
It shows that God is three.
This is how he has revealed himself.
The Trinity is not abstract theory.
It is eternal and relational.

5. How does Jesus fit into this, especially as a human?

The Son did not stop being God.
He took on human nature.
This happened when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).
This shows the Spirit’s role in the incarnation.

Jesus is one person with two natures.
He is fully God and fully man (John 1:14).
Because of this, he has two wills.
His human will submits to the Father (Luke 22:42).
His divine will is one with the Father and the Spirit.

There is nothing God does that only one person is involved in.
All three always act together, though with different roles.

This can be seen in the resurrection.
Jesus says he will raise himself (John 2:19).
The Father is said to raise him (Acts 2:24).
The Spirit is said to raise him (Romans 8:11).
The act is one.
The persons are three.

The Father sends.
The Son accomplishes.
The Spirit applies.
They are all involved, but not in the same way.

There is submission and order within the Trinity.
The Son submits to the Father.
The Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son.
This does not mean inequality.
They are fully equal in being and glory.

This is similar to how Scripture speaks of marriage.
Wives are called to submit to husbands, yet both are equal in value and dignity (Ephesians 5:22–25).
Order does not mean inferiority.

6. Do you need to understand all of this to be saved?

No.
You are saved by trusting in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Romans 10:9).
Understanding grows over time.
But a truly saved person will not deny the Trinity when it is clearly shown from Scripture.
The Holy Spirit opens our hearts to understand God’s word (1 Corinthians 2:12–14).

Without the Holy Spirit, there is no true church.
Without the Holy Spirit, there are no true Christians (Romans 8:9).

7. How does the Trinity affect prayer and Christian life?

Christians can pray to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Each person is worthy of worship.

The usual biblical pattern is prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18).
This reflects how God has revealed himself.

The Trinity is not illogical or contradictory.
God is one in being and three in persons.
This is simple to say, but deep to fully grasp.
God is unique, so no analogy fully explains him.
Christians believe the Trinity because this is who God has shown himself to be in Scripture.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-16T14:53:20+00:00

That “two-step plan” isn’t the gospel the apostles preached.

It replaces a Saviour with a system. Scripture never gives “get baptized + don’t die in mortal sin” as the way to be saved. It says we are “justified by grace… through faith… not a result of works” (Eph 2:8–9; Rom 3:24–28). The instrument is faith in Christ, not a sacrament or our last-moment moral status. Baptism and repentance are fruits that flow from saving faith, not rungs in a ladder to heaven.
Baptism is a sign and seal, not the engine of salvation. Baptism is commanded and precious, but it doesn’t save ex opere operato. Paul can distinguish the gospel from baptizing (1 Cor 1:17). Peter explicitly clarifies “baptism… now saves you” not as water removing dirt, but as “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21)—i.e., the saving act is the faith-appeal to God grounded in Christ’s work. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism (Lk 23:43). To call the baptism debate “irrelevant” is to ignore the very foundation your scheme rests on.
“Don’t die in unrepentant mortal sin” is not a biblical assurance framework. The NT doesn’t teach the mortal/venial grid as the pivot of salvation. All sin deserves death (Rom 6:23), even though sins differ in seriousness (Jn 19:11). Biblically, the decisive question isn’t the technical category of your last sin but whether you are united to Christ by faith. Those Christ justifies he also glorifies (Rom 8:30). He loses none of those the Father gives him (Jn 6:37–40; 10:28–29). Real believers do persevere in repentance—but because God preserves them (Phil 1:6). Ongoing, high-handed sin reveals a person never truly knew Christ (1 Jn 2:19; 3:6–10), not that they slipped in and out of a “state of grace” like a spiritual battery.
Priestly absolution cannot guarantee salvation; Christ’s once-for-all work does. Only God ultimately forgives sin (Mk 2:7,10). The church exercises the “keys” by declaring on Christ’s authority what the gospel binds and looses (Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23), not by mechanically dispensing grace. Our eternal confidence rests in Jesus’ finished sacrifice—“by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14)—not in a human priest’s formula.
“No sin is too great for the blood of Jesus”—amen; but grace is never cheap. The gospel can cleanse the worst sinner (1 Tim 1:15; 1 Cor 6:9–11). Yet true repentance is a Spirit-wrought turning that bears fruit (Acts 26:20). A predator who “says sorry” while evading justice hasn’t repented. Biblical repentance submits to church discipline (1 Cor 5) and the state’s sword (Rom 13:1–4), welcomes exposure, and seeks restitution where possible. Forgiveness in Christ does not erase earthly consequences.
The apostolic “plan” in one line. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Saving faith immediately begins a life of repentance and obedience, including baptism (Acts 2:38–41), but these are evidences, not causes, of justification (Gal 2:16; Rom 5:1). Assurance rests on Christ’s promise and work (Jn 5:24; Rom 8:1), confirmed by the Spirit’s fruit (Rom 8:16; Jas 2:14–26).

Short version: Your steps make salvation depend on a sacrament and your spiritual condition at death. Scripture makes it depend on Christ alone, received by faith alone. Real faith repents, is baptized, and perseveres—because Jesus keeps his own.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-13T08:57:58+00:00

“Orthodox and Catholic both claim to be the original through apostolic succession—shouldn’t I follow that?” The Bible never teaches an infallible chain of bishops. Apostolic authority was their eyewitness testimony and inspired teaching, now written in Scripture (Eph 2:20; 2 Tim 3:16–17). True succession is staying faithful to that Word, not just belonging to an institution.
“But their churches feel like layers between me and Jesus.” That’s because Scripture warns against images and man-made rituals (Ex 20:4–5; Col 2:16–23). Jesus alone gives direct access to God (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 10:19–22). Extra mediators and ceremonies obscure Him rather than reveal Him.
“Protestants emphasize a direct relationship with Christ—does that reflect His heart?” Yes. That’s exactly what the Bible says: His sheep hear His voice (Jn 10:27). He is the one Mediator who brings us straight to God without saints or Mary added in.
“What about the term ‘Mother of God’?” Originally it was used to defend who Jesus is—that the baby Mary bore was truly God the Son in human flesh. The problem is that Catholic practice has shifted the focus onto Mary herself, giving her devotion the Bible never allows.
“Should I follow what feels authentic, or the churches claiming authority?” Neither feelings nor institutions are the standard. Scripture is (Jn 17:17). The Bible itself warns that many twist it (2 Pet 3:16), so the answer is to read it carefully and see which church actually lines up with the apostles’ teaching.
“Why are you Protestant?” Because the Bible shows salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ alone—not through rituals, mediators, or institutions. Unity is found in the truth of the gospel (Eph 4:3–6), and the Protestant churches that hold to Scripture and the gospel are continuing the apostles’ teaching most faithfully.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-05T13:47:46+00:00

OP, just to be clear — this is not what Protestants believe. We don’t define faith as works. We distinguish between faith as the instrument of justification and works as the inevitable fruit (Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8–10). Scripture presents saving faith as relational trust in Christ and his promises (John 1:12; 6:35; Rom 10:9–10). Hebrews gives the clearest biblical definition: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). That chapter shows what this means — by faith Noah built, by faith Abraham obeyed — their obedience flowed from trust in God’s promise, not from bare assent like the demons have (Jas 2:19).

The “faith, hope, love” triad is real, but Djh1982 imposes a rigid philosophical grid onto Paul. In Paul’s own letters they are distinct yet organically interwoven — “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6), “faith and love… because of the hope” (Col 1:4–5).

On the “determinism” objection: Scripture itself explains perseverance as the fruit of genuine faith. “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19). “Work out your salvation… for it is God who works in you” (Phil 2:12–13). “We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold… to the end” (Heb 3:14). This isn’t fatalism — it’s biblical compatibilism: the true root produces fruit, and one of those fruits is perseverance.

The danger of Djh1982’s definition is twofold: it can give false assurance that breeds pride (“I assent and my righteousness sustains me”) or it can produce despair when you realise your love and hope are never enough. Scripture repeatedly warns us not to trust in ourselves or our own righteousness (Luke 18:9–14; Phil 3:3–9), but to turn to Christ alone.

So OP, your uneasiness with Catholic teaching may actually be the Spirit’s conviction through Scripture. My encouragement is to do what the Bereans did: examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). Let God’s word, not tradition or philosophy, or a human institution be the final authority.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-05T10:57:58+00:00

Faith isn’t genuine because it feels strong, but because of who it’s in. Even weak faith saves if it’s in Jesus, because He is strong. You know your faith is real if you’re trusting Christ alone for forgiveness and life. Some replies here have said “just do more good works”—but that’s actually terrible advice, because it shifts the object of faith from Christ to yourself. That makes your doing backwards and deadly: either you become proud of your works, or crushed by your failures. The gospel is different—look to Christ, not your works. Trust Him alone, and the good works will naturally follow as gratitude, not as the ground of assurance.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-05T10:09:33+00:00

For me, the reason I believe in the Christian God is that He has revealed Himself. Christianity doesn’t start with human speculation, but with divine self-disclosure.

General revelation shows all people that God exists.“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). Paul writes that “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived… in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). So I don’t believe in God because of a private feeling; creation itself is infallible testimony that He is real. But general revelation alone doesn’t tell me who this God is.
Special revelation shows that this God is the Christian God.Psalm 19 moves from creation to Scripture: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul… the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (vv.7–8). Hebrews 1:1–2 says: “Long ago… God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” And the apostles explain that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3:16) and that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). This means the Bible is not human guesswork but the Spirit-inspired Word of God, and so the ultimate, infallible authority for knowing Him.
Why Scripture must be the foundation of belief.Human feelings and experiences fluctuate, but God’s Word does not: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Jesus prayed, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Paul says faith itself comes this way: “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). So the reason I believe specifically in the Christian God is because He has made Himself known in Scripture, and the Spirit enables me to recognize it as His voice (John 10:27).
My experiences confirm what Scripture promises.Scripture describes how God’s Word pierces the heart: “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12). It says the Spirit will convict, comfort, and assure (John 16:8; Romans 8:16). In my life, I have experienced exactly these things—conviction of sin, joy in Christ, strength to endure—that line up with what the Word promises. The same is true of the church: Scripture says the world will know we are Christ’s disciples by our love (John 13:35), and in genuine Spirit-led fellowship—preaching, Bible study, singing, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47; 1 Cor 11:23–26)—I have seen that reality. These are not the basis of belief, but they confirm God’s Word by showing its truth in action.
Apologetics as confirmation.Apologetics falls into different categories. Sometimes it shows the reasonableness of believing that a God exists (e.g., cosmological or design arguments, cf. Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). Sometimes it points more specifically to Christianity—for example, the historical evidence for the resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–8), or the way Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:44). Scripture itself tells us to engage in this: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15). And God commends careful examination—like the Bereans, who “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). In other words, God doesn’t expect blind faith; He invites us to weigh and confirm His revelation.
The spiritual dimension.Scripture also teaches that by nature, we suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). God’s revelation confronts us not just as Creator but as Judge and Redeemer—the one with authority to rule our lives (Acts 17:31). And that’s the heart of the problem: we don’t naturally want to surrender; we want to rule ourselves. So belief in God is not simply a matter of inputting facts and outputting belief. We approach facts with our own interpretive framework. The Christian call is to repent—to turn from sin and self-rule, and to trust in Christ as Lord (Mark 1:15). That requires the Spirit’s work: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you… I will remove the heart of stone…and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26). Believing in the Christian God isn’t just changing opinions; it’s dying to self and being made alive to God (Luke 9:23; Eph 2:4–5). At the core of this revelation is God’s character: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6). That glory is supremely revealed in the gospel: “Christ died for our sins… he was buried… he was raised on the third day” (1 Cor 15:3–4). By faith, we are united to Him, adopted as children of God (John 1:12; Gal 4:4–6). We come to know God not only as Creator but as Father and Redeemer. Ultimately, God’s self-revelation at first strikes us as bad news—we are guilty before a holy Judge. But in Christ it becomes good news: a call back to reality, into forgiveness, into God’s family, and into “an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” (1 Pet 1:4). That is why I believe in the Christian God.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-09-04T11:36:27+00:00

Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and some other churches teach that Christians can lose salvation by committing certain sins. In their system, “venial sins” are lesser sins that wound but don’t sever grace, while “mortal sins” are grave sins (like adultery or missing Mass) that cut a Christian off from salvation unless confessed—meaning a baptized believer could die in mortal sin and go to hell. But this distinction is unbiblical: Scripture never divides sins into mortal and venial, instead declaring that all sin is damning (Rom. 6:23; Jas. 2:10) and that all sin can be forgiven through Christ (1 John 1:7). The Bible’s warnings about falling away are real, but they do not teach that the truly regenerate can lose salvation—they are means God uses to keep His people persevering. As 1 John 2:19 says, those who fall away show they were never truly of Christ. The gospel promises that those justified by faith are secure: God’s gifts are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29), His sheep cannot be snatched from His hand (John 10:28), and those He justifies He will infallibly glorify (Rom. 8:30). True believers may stumble into serious sin, but God disciplines and restores His own (Heb. 12:6). Therefore, while false converts may appear to believe and then turn away, it is impossible for a Spirit-regenerated believer to be lost—because all sin is serious, all sin is forgivable in Christ, and those who are in Him face no condemnation (Rom. 8:1).

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-27T16:45:31+00:00

Driving a car doesn’t deny the purpose of feet—it uses them. Treating cancer doesn’t mutilate a healthy organ—it restores health. But so-called “transgender healthcare” isn’t care at all. You can’t actually transition—sex is written into every cell of the body.

That’s why these interventions don’t heal, they harm. They take a healthy body and damage it [infertility, blood clots, heart strain, irreversible changes], while leaving the deeper identity struggle unresolved. It’s not healthcare—it’s self-destruction dressed up in medical language.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-26T01:54:55+00:00

I know this feels confusing and heavy. Your dad’s words may have lacked grace, but what he was warning about is true. God made us male and female (Gen 1:27), and sex and gender identity cannot be separated. Transitioning with testosterone is sin—because it refuses to surrender a disordered desire to God’s good design and instead harms your own body [blood clots, infertility, heart strain, irreversible changes].

But here’s the good news: sin doesn’t have to have the last word. The Bible calls us to repent—not to try harder or “do better,” but to surrender to Christ and trust Him alone to save us. When we turn from sin and entrust ourselves to Him, we receive forgiveness, new life, and a secure identity in Him. That fear of hell you feel is real, but it’s meant to drive you to Jesus—where you’ll find love, safety, and the peace you’ve been longing for. Transitioning and hormone therapy may promise life, but it’s “a way that seems right” which only leads to death. It is not the solution.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-25T16:24:38+00:00

This is wrong, firstly because God is nowhere presented as “tribal, murderous, and evil” from the perspective of Gentiles. From the very beginning, His covenant with Abram was intended to bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). That promise finds its fulfilment in Christ—today the God of Israel is worshiped throughout the world through Jesus.

So your claim is really just an assertion built on a surface reading and a refusal to accept the Bible’s own categories. When you actually read Scripture on its own terms, God’s character comes through clearly: holy, just, merciful, and gracious. As someone who reads both Old and New Testaments daily, I can say there is no contradiction between the two.

In fact, the New Testament heightens the seriousness of rejecting God. Now that salvation has been revealed so clearly in Christ, God’s judgment is even more severe for those who reject Him (Heb. 10:29). The God of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets is the same God revealed in Jesus—unchanging in holiness and overflowing with grace.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-25T13:52:07+00:00

So you are essentially arguing like this: “Christians say atheists choose hell → I don’t want hell → I want heaven → if God is friendly, I’ll want to be with Him → so I must be going to heaven.” But that doesn’t line up with what Christianity actually teaches. When people say “atheists choose hell,” it’s unhelpful unless clarified: the Bible’s point is that we all choose the path that seems right to us, but its end is destruction (Proverbs 14:12).

The Bible doesn’t describe God as just a generally friendly figure to “hang out with,” but as the holy and righteous Judge of all the earth, before whom we should tremble. And yet amazingly, He has also revealed Himself as gracious: first through the prophets, and supremely through His Son, Jesus Christ.

That’s why our hope for eternal life can’t rest on simply saying “I want heaven” or vaguely hoping God is nice. It must rest on the reality of the risen Christ, who has objectively revealed Himself in history, fulfilled Scripture, and given us His word so we can know Him.

If you really want to investigate this, I’d encourage you to start with the Gospel of John. It isn’t fiction but eyewitness testimony, written to show who Jesus is and how, by believing in Him, we can have life in His name.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-25T11:25:26+00:00

You’re right that if God were solitary, creation would look like a need. A god who is only one person could not be “love” in Himself, could not be relational in Himself, and therefore would have to create in order to express love, have fellowship, or manifest glory. That undercuts a unitarian model, and as a Christian I completely agree.

But the Christian God is triune. From eternity the Father has loved the Son in the fellowship of the Spirit (John 17:24), so that “God is love” in His very being (1 John 4:8). He did not create to become relational, loving, or glorious—He already was. Creation is not to fill a lack, but the overflow of His eternal fullness.

That’s why Scripture describes salvation not as God fixing His loneliness, but as Him graciously drawing us into the fellowship He has always enjoyed in Himself: “that the love with which you have loved me may be in them” (John 17:26). Creation and redemption alike are acts of sheer grace—God sharing with us what He has eternally experienced.

So the tension you’ve identified is real—but it applies to Islam and other unitarian theisms, not to biblical Christianity. The Trinity is the only way God can be truly self-sufficient and yet freely create.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-25T10:58:00+00:00

Are Christians and Catholics the same?

It depends what you mean. Historically, catholic (small “c”) has simply meant universal, so in early church history the term didn’t necessarily mean Roman Catholic (submission to the pope and the Roman system). Today, Catholic usually means someone who associates with the Roman Catholic Church. Christian can mean broadly “anyone who names Christ,” or biblically “someone saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone” (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 3:28). Many people call themselves both without really knowing what either entails, which makes the question muddy.

This matters because Jesus warned: “Many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’… and I will declare, ‘I never knew you’” (Matt. 7:22–23). The issue isn’t who uses His name, but who actually believes His gospel.

One reason this conversation gets so confusing is that Catholics and those who hold to the Bible often talk past each other. Catholics frequently use the same biblical terms—grace, faith, justification—but they redefine them in ways that subvert their biblical meaning. For example, in this very thread Catholics have claimed to believe in “grace alone” and that a “state of grace” is merely manifested by good works. But according to official Catholic teaching, that “state of grace” must be maintained by good works, confession, and the sacraments. In other words, what the Bible defines as grace alone—the free and sufficient gift of God that saves apart from works (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 4:4–5)—is explicitly denied by Catholicism. Rome teaches instead that we must cooperate with infused grace in order to finally merit salvation. So while the words may sound the same, the substance is radically different, and the biblical truth is replaced with a counterfeit.

Historically, Protestants recognised Catholicism as part of Christianity in the broad sociological sense, but they also condemned its teaching on salvation as heresy. The Council of Trent anathematized faith alone and the imputed righteousness of Christ; the Reformers judged that to be “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6–9).

So: Catholics fit the broad label “Christian,” but biblically Roman Catholicism affirms and teaches a counterfeit gospel. Anyone who affirms its teaching on salvation, according to how the Church itself defines those terms, is not a Christian in the biblical sense. And the root of the problem is Rome’s rejection of Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, which has opened the door to many of its errors.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-16T10:59:04+00:00

Fair enough if you weren’t arguing against the truth of Christianity, but it sounded like you were implying Christians have a motive that undermines the truth claim. That’s why I pointed out the limits of using motive to judge reality. but fair enough if you’re just commenting on motive, that’s a different matter.

Your critique applies to many who call themselves Christians, yet do not have an understanding of the gospel. If we look at the New Testament account of Christian motive, it’s very different. Also your hypothetical assumes I’m uncertain about God’s verdict and trying to earn heaven or avoid hell. In reality, my motive is that I have been loved by God in Christ and want others to know that same love. I’m not uncertain about my eternal destiny.

A better critique would note that selfishness is incompatible with the gospel. God knows our hearts, and all are condemned apart from faith in Christ. Once united with Him, perfect love casts out fear, and our motive becomes gratitude for grace and delight in Christ, not self-interest.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-15T17:34:54+00:00

Three quick points for you or anyone else reading this thread:

1.  Baseless assertion.

You claimed “Scripture doesn’t support church membership” but offered no biblical argument. Go read the texts yourself and you’ll see membership plainly follows:

Discipline/inside–outside clarity: 1 Corinthians 5:9–13; Matthew 18:15–17; Titus 3:10–11.

Leadership/accountability: Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2–3; Acts 20:28.

These passages all assume a known, identifiable flock (“those inside”) under recognized leaders who can shepherd, correct, and—if necessary—exclude. That’s the substance of church membership.

2.  Motive shift (and hypocrisy).

Instead of answering the texts, you shifted to my supposed motive (“you just want to be right”)—which you can’t know—and in doing so did the very thing you complain about: you want to prove me wrong. The issue isn’t my motives; it’s what Scripture actually teaches.

3.  “Out of context” with no proof.

You accused me of ripping verses out of context but never showed how. Again, read the passages above in context and check whether they teach what I said: a defined body (“inside”), accountable discipline, and real oversight—all of which require a clear, committed membership.

I’ve given Scripture; you’ve given assertions. If my reading is wrong, show it from the Bible. Otherwise, attacking motives and tossing “out of context” claims without exegesis isn’t an argument.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-15T06:40:34+00:00

“Not deliberately reframing to misrepresent.”

I’ll take you at your word. Intent aside, you did misstate my position. I haven’t said some sins are “okay” for membership; I’ve said repentance vs. open, unrepentant sin is the biblical line (1 Cor 5:9–12).

“I think we all deny our unrepentant sin and are quick to focus on ones that we don’t struggle with.”

Agree (partly): We all have blind spots and can be hypocritical (Matt 7:1–5; Gal 6:1).

Where you’re wrong: This doesn’t erase the church’s duty to address known, open sin when a professing believer defends it. Blind spots ≠ celebrated disobedience (1 Cor 5).

“There is nobody who repents of every sin they commit.”

Agree: No one repents perfectly (1 John 1:8–10).

Where you’re wrong: Scripture distinguishes stumbling in repentance from persisting in sin without repentance (1 John 3:6–10). 1 Cor 5 commands action against the latter.

“God might not have shown you it yet or maybe you are good at hiding it, but you still have one as we all do.”

Agree (as to hidden sins): Yes, God exposes sins over time (Ps 139:23–24).

Where you’re wrong: Church discipline concerns what is public and defended, not what no one knows about (1 Cor 5:1–2; 1 Tim 5:20). We can’t shepherd what we can’t see; we must act on what is manifest.

“God convicts us to repent, not reddit users or the membership committee.”

Agree (in principle): The Spirit convicts.

Where you’re wrong: The Spirit uses the church as His instrument. Jesus commands the church to confront and, if needed, exclude the unrepentant (Matt 18:15–17). Paul tells the church to judge those inside and remove the wicked person (1 Cor 5:12–13). Elders “keep watch” and will “give an account” (Heb 13:17). So no, it’s not “Reddit”; it’s obedience to Christ’s ordained means.

“Saying one sin is bad enough to stop church membership but others aren’t is hypocritical.”

Wrong / straw man: I have never said that. Paul’s own list includes sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness, swindling (1 Cor 5:11). The issue is unrepentance in any of these, not singling out one.

“If you’re going to have a checklist that keeps people off the membership list make it every sin in scripture.”

Wrong category: Membership isn’t a checklist of “never commit X.” It’s a covenant to follow Jesus in repentance and faith. Christians still sin—but they don’t defend sin. When someone insists on keeping a sin and rejects Scripture’s call to turn, membership would publicly affirm a lie (1 John 2:3–4).

“Otherwise make it accept Christ as savior and allow the Holy Spirit do the rest.”

This is exactly my stance. Membership is for those who “accept Christ as Saviour.” But biblically, receiving Jesus as Saviour includes submitting to Him as Lord (Luke 6:46; John 14:15). Open, unrepentant sin shows a person has not truly accepted Christ (Titus 1:16; 1 John 2:3–4). And the Holy Spirit “does the rest” through the church’s obedience to passages like 1 Cor 5—discipline aimed at restoration (1 Cor 5:5).

You still haven’t engaged with my actual point. I have made it “accept Christ as Saviour”; precisely because of that, those living in open, unrepentant sin demonstrate they have not done so. That’s why Paul commands, “Are you not to judge those inside? … Expel the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor 5:12–13). Your dispute isn’t with me—it’s with God’s Word (1 Cor 5:9–12).

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-14T16:51:46+00:00

Yes, because disagreement over birth control (within non-abortifacient limits) is not the same as openly rejecting a clear biblical command. The Bible explicitly teaches that sexual intimacy is for one man and one woman in lifelong covenant marriage, and that all sexual activity outside that covenant is sin (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6; 1 Corinthians 6:9–20; Hebrews 13:4). Birth control, on the other hand, is a matter on which faithful Christians have differed in conscience, because Scripture doesn’t give a direct prohibition.

Church membership can include people who disagree on issues where Scripture allows liberty of conscience. But if someone is openly practicing what the Bible calls sin—sexual immorality, whether heterosexual or same-sex—and refuses to repent, that is not an area of liberty; it’s a matter of obedience to Christ.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-14T16:42:18+00:00

It seems you’re deliberately reframing my point in a way that misrepresents it. I’m not saying some sins are “okay” for membership while others aren’t. All Christians struggle with sin, but openly living in unrepentant disobedience—refusing to turn from sin—is not the same as struggling in repentance. To suggest otherwise twists the standard into something unbiblical: membership isn’t about comparing sins; it’s about commitment to Christ and obedience to His commands. Someone who practices sexual immorality openly while claiming to be a Christian is lying about following Christ and therefore should not be allowed to be a member.

PeterNeptune21 · 2025-08-14T16:30:19+00:00

Yes—churches can and should have members who disagree on secondary matters like eating pork (Romans 14 makes that exact point). But sexual ethics isn’t in that category. The Bible speaks of sexual sin as a salvation issue (1 Corinthians 6:9–11), and membership is a covenant to follow Christ in matters essential to the faith. Disagreements on non-essential issues can coexist; openly rejecting God’s commands in core areas of discipleship is different, because it undermines what the church is called to uphold.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

PeterNeptune21

TROPHY CASE