latenite: Blessings

ditto

/thank you for your time

I drunk what: latenite: That's nuts.

i never claimed to be sane, nevertheless i can assure you that my words are True

So you do believe that one is not saved unless they "6. live faithfully unto death"? Do you realize and agree that what you're saying is that you cannot know for sure that you're saved as long as you live; you can only be sure once you die? Are you aware that is *completely* contradictory to a *huge* amount of scripture?

latenite: Why do you need bullet points from me?

i'm sorry, i though you were attempting to make a point.

if you were i could indicate whether or not it is a valid point, if not then no worries.

do you feel that it is a trick question? it is not, its is just as simple as it appears, either you can answer it or you cannot, no tricks

Yes, it seemed very much like a trick question, as it seemed totally unnecessary given the directness of the passage. This is my understanding of what is necessary for salvation:
1. I agree, you must first hear the gospel. It goes without saying that you cannot make a decision about something you're not aware exists. It may be unintentional, like passing a preacher on a street corner, or it may be intentional, like attending a Billy Graham event.
2. I Cor. 15:3-8 contains the essence of the gospel as explained by Paul. He states that Jesus died for our sins (This asserts Jesus' deity, as no one else is qualified to do so. It also asserts that we are sinners in need of forgiveness and repentance, or we'd have no sins that Christ need have died for), that He was buried, and resurrected (again asserting deity). The description of appearances to others amplifies the claim of resurrection.
3. From vv. 1-2, Paul is stating that their salvation comes from believing this gospel. You cannot believe the gospel without acknowledging Christ's deity, acknowledging that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, and accepting Christ's sacrifice as the atonement for our sins.

None of these elements qualify as work; they're all internal. No mention of baptism or any other externally seen actions.

BTW, I just remembered the "Hey Dad" rule to determine whether something is a work or not. If you can fill in the blank: "Hey Dad, watch me...", such as "Hey Dad, watch me get baptized!", it's a work. If it doesn't make sense, like "Hey Dad, watch me believe!", it's not a work.

Works (like baptism and living a life obedient to God) are good things, if kept in their proper perspective. They are performed as a result of salvation, not to earn it.

latenite: Again I ask, though, why isn't baptism mentioned there?

I drunk what:

you mean like in this verse?

I Corith. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

/is this a trick question?

What is baptism for the dead? What does it have to do with anything? It's not part of the gospel that only runs up to verse 8. Do you practice baptism of the dead? If not, why are you justifying your doctrine with it?

Paul was addressing an obscure practice by the Corinthians simply to get them to acknowledge their own belief in resurrection. There is not a single corroborating verse in all of scripture, yet the Mormons have built an entire doctrine around it. Are you doing the same?

latenite: I drunk what: latenite: That's nuts.

i never claimed to be sane, nevertheless i can assure you that my words are True

So you do believe that one is not saved unless they "6. live faithfully unto death"? Do you realize and agree that what you're saying is that you cannot know for sure that you're saved as long as you live; you can only be sure once you die? Are you aware that is *completely* contradictory to a *huge* amount of scripture?

latenite: Why do you need bullet points from me?

i'm sorry, i though you were attempting to make a point.

if you were i could indicate whether or not it is a valid point, if not then no worries.

do you feel that it is a trick question? it is not, its is just as simple as it appears, either you can answer it or you cannot, no tricks

Yes, it seemed very much like a trick question, as it seemed totally unnecessary given the directness of the passage. This is my understanding of what is necessary for salvation:
1. I agree, you must first hear the gospel. It goes without saying that you cannot make a decision about something you're not aware exists. It may be unintentional, like passing a preacher on a street corner, or it may be intentional, like attending a Billy Graham event.
2. I Cor. 15:3-8 contains the essence of the gospel as explained by Paul. He states that Jesus died for our sins (This asserts Jesus' deity, as no one else is qualified to do so. It also asserts that we are sinners in need of forgiveness and repentance, or we'd have no sins that Christ need have died for), that He was buried, and resurrected (again asserting deity). The description of appearances to others amplifies the claim of resurrection.
3. From vv. 1-2, Paul is stating that their salvation comes from believing this gospel. You cannot believe the gospel without acknowledging Christ's deity, acknowledging that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, and accepting Christ's sacrifice as the atonement for our sins.

None of these elements qualify as work; they're all internal. No mention of baptism or any other externally seen actions.

BTW, I just remembered the "Hey Dad" rule to determine whether something is a work or not. If you can fill in the blank: "Hey Dad, watch me...", such as "Hey Dad, watch me get baptized!", it's a work. If it doesn't make sense, like "Hey Dad, watch me believe!", it's not a work.

Works (like baptism and living a life obedient to God) are good things, if kept in their proper perspective. They are performed as a result of salvation, not to earn it.

latenite: Again I ask, though, why isn't baptism mentioned there?

I drunk what:

you mean like in this verse?

I Corith. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

/is this a trick question?

What is baptism for the dead? What does it have to do with anything? It's not part of the gospel that only runs up to verse 8. Do you practice baptism of the dead? If not, why are you justifying your doctrine with it?

Paul was addressing an obscure practice by the Corinthians simply to get them to acknowledge their own belief in resurrection. There is not a single corroborating verse in all of scripture, yet the Mormons have built an entire doctrine around it. Are you doing the same?

I agree with everything you write. I am not CofC. I did attend one of their colleges briefly. I was mainly just giving a quick overview of what real baptism is and keeping it a high level for a lot of nonbelievers that would read it.
Getting back to the original article I find it very interesting that denominations that are doing this sort of thing aren't growing.

Washo_the_Gorilla: They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent.....

I'm not a NT Greek expert, but out of interest some time ago I looked into the Eastern Orthodox positions on this (they practice "chrismation" of infants, which is like infant baptism, except they hold that the Holy Spirit infills the infant at that time, and they become full members of the Church as well, and can take communion - eg, no confirmation necessary).

They maintain that the passage referenced above in the Greek isn't actually sequential - in their view it should be read as 2 separate instructions - Repent. Be Baptized. Not necessarily in that order.

I'm not sure I completely agree (raised Pentacostal/charismatic/evangelical with a dash of Anglican), but if their interpretation of the Greek text is correct, their practice makes more sense, at least to me.

latenite: So you do believe that one is not saved unless they "6. live faithfully unto death"?

Indeed.

latenite: Do you realize and agree that what you're saying is that you cannot know for sure that you're saved as long as you live

that is true regardless of whether or not you agree with all of my points

though we can be reasonably sure, just like we can be reasonably sure that all of those points are valid

latenite: Are you aware that is *completely* contradictory to a *huge* amount of scripture?

you mean in the same way huge amounts of scripture contradict the need for baptism?

latenite: This is my understanding of what is necessary for salvation:

(just for clarification here are the passages you are referring to:)

I Cor. 15:1-8

1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

and here is what you derived from this text:

1. I agree, you must first hear the gospel. It goes without saying that you cannot make a decision about something you're not aware exists. It may be unintentional, like passing a preacher on a street corner, or it may be intentional, like attending a Billy Graham event.

so even though it doesn't say either to hear or believe, you feel that it is quite clear that one should do both, noted

also i noticed that Paul speaks of "the word i preached to you" yet you don't seem concerned about bringing that up to support whatever point you are trying to interpret from these passages. is this wise?

even though he gives a brief recap of which "word" he is referring to, you seem to be implying that these 8 verses contain all the information one would need in order to follow his "teachings", or perhaps i'm misunderstanding you?

2. I Cor. 15:3-8 contains the essence of the gospel as explained by Paul. He states that Jesus died for our sins (This asserts Jesus' deity, as no one else is qualified to do so. It also asserts that we are sinners in need of forgiveness and repentance, or we'd have no sins that Christ need have died for), that He was buried, and resurrected (again asserting deity). The description of appearances to others amplifies the claim of resurrection.

is there a difference between the "essence" and the "gospel" itself? also i can't help but notice there aren't any commands or actions here, but simply a 'summary' of this "gospel" that you keep referring to

3. From vv. 1-2, Paul is stating that their salvation comes from believing this gospel. You cannot believe the gospel without acknowledging Christ's deity, acknowledging that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, and accepting Christ's sacrifice as the atonement for our sins.

So to recap, your complete list of requirements, is that one must:

1. Hear (even though it's not stated anywhere in these passages you are quite certain that it can be inferred)

2. Believe (again not stated anywhere, but you are quite certain that it can be inferred)*

...In order to be Saved?

and, correct me if i'm wrong, but you also seem to be insinuating that this "gospel" that Paul is referring to is simply the passages quoted above (verses 1-8), correct?

/* an interesting note that "belief" is mentioned by Paul, warning against having "believed in vain", i wonder what that means?

latenite: None of these elements qualify as work; they're all internal. No mention of baptism or any other externally seen actions.

and again we seem to be having a communication problem,

are you quite certain that "Hearing" cannot be externally seen, or "internal" as you put it?

So as you are READING my words now, you are doing no sort of work or action in order to accomplish this?

/are you familiar with "verbs"? do you know what a "choice" is?

When a person speaks to you, and you LISTEN and UNDERSTAND his words you are doing no action? no work?

those are all internal things that cannot be verified?

I drunk what: latenite: So you do believe that one is not saved unless they "6. live faithfully unto death"?

Indeed.

latenite: Do you realize and agree that what you're saying is that you cannot know for sure that you're saved as long as you live

that is true regardless of whether or not you agree with all of my points

though we can be reasonably sure, just like we can be reasonably sure that all of those points are valid

latenite: Are you aware that is *completely* contradictory to a *huge* amount of scripture?

you mean in the same way huge amounts of scripture contradict the need for baptism?

latenite: This is my understanding of what is necessary for salvation:

(just for clarification here are the passages you are referring to:)

I Cor. 15:1-8

1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

and here is what you derived from this text:

1. I agree, you must first hear the gospel. It goes without saying that you cannot make a decision about something you're not aware exists. It may be unintentional, like passing a preacher on a street corner, or it may be intentional, like attending a Billy Graham event.

so even though it doesn't say either to hear or believe, you feel that it is quite clear that one should do both, noted

also i noticed that Paul speaks of "the word i preached to you" yet you don't seem concerned about bringing that up to support whatever point you are trying to interpret from these passages. is this wise?

even though he gives a brief recap of which "word" he is referring to, you seem to be implying that these 8 verses contain all the information one would need in order to follow his "teachings", or perhaps i'm misunderstanding you?

2. I Cor. 15:3-8 contains the essence of the gospel as explained by Paul. He states that Jesus died for our sins (This asserts Jesus' deity, as no one else is qualified to do so. It also asserts that we are sinners in need of forgiveness and repentance, or we'd have no sins that Christ need have died for), that He was buried, and resurrected (again asserting deity). The description of appearances to others amplifies the claim of resurrection.

is there a difference between the "essence" and the "gospel" itself? also i can't help but notice there aren't any commands or actions here, but simply a 'summary' of this "gospel" that you keep referring to

3. From vv. 1-2, Paul is stating that their salvation comes from believing this gospel. You cannot believe the gospel without acknowledging Christ's deity, acknowledging that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, and accepting Christ's sacrifice as the atonement for our sins.

So to recap, your complete list of requirements, is that one must:

1. Hear (even though it's not stated anywhere in these passages you are quite certain that it can be inferred)

2. Believe (again not stated anywhere, but you are quite certain that it can be inferred)*

...In order to be Saved?

and, correct me if i'm wrong, but you also seem to be insinuating that this "gospel" that Paul is referring to is simply the passages quoted above (verses 1-8), correct?

/* an interesting note that "belief" is mentioned by Paul, warning against having "believed in vain", i wonder what that means?

This is *exactly* why I didn't want to give you a bulleted list. I *knew* with 100% certainty that you would take my interpretation of the passage and pick apart the semantics, because that's what *every* ICOC member is trained to do (whether they realize it or not), like good little clones of Kip McKean. And you said it wasn't a trick question. BS!!! That's why I said to make your own bulleted list. You can blow my flawed arguments apart all day; it's Paul's intent in scripture that matters, and that's what you're in disagreement with.

I drunk what: latenite: None of these elements qualify as work; they're all internal. No mention of baptism or any other externally seen actions.

and again we seem to be having a communication problem,

are you quite certain that "Hearing" cannot be externally seen, or "internal" as you put it?

So as you are READING my words now, you are doing no sort of work or action in order to accomplish this?

/are you familiar with "verbs"? do you know what a "choice" is?

When a person speaks to you, and you LISTEN and UNDERSTAND his words you are doing no action? no work?

those are all internal things that cannot be verified?

No, none of these things are considered "work", as scripture uses the word ergon (new window). Tell me if "baptism" doesn't make sense with this definition applied, though (a deed carried out to accomplish the intention of salvation).

If you disagree, you just don't understand the true meaning of the word; I challenge you to check with any unbiased Greek professor you like (outside the church), and ask if words like "hearing" or "belief" fit the definition. Dollars to donuts they'd say they do not, but "baptism" does. The CoC is highly adept at misinterpreting the word "work" to their own ends and teaching the error accordingly.

Again, the "Hey Dad" rule applies in any instance I can think of in reference to work. If you child said "Hey Dad! Watch me understand!" or "Watch me listen!", tell me honestly that doesn't sound at least awkward, if not totally nonsensical.

latenite: because that's what *every* ICOC member is trained to do (whether they realize it or not), like good little clones of Kip McKean. And you said it wasn't a trick question. BS!!!

calm down lad, no need to get angry, let's just pretend to be two civilized Christians having a nice little conversation shall we?

first off, i'm not a member of the ICOC, just the boring COC kind (new window), 2nd i haven't heard of Kip M. until you mentioned him, so i'm pretty sure i'm not one of his good little clones :)

latenite: You can blow my flawed arguments apart all day; it's Paul's intent in scripture that matters, and that's what you're in disagreement with

and what happens when "paul's intent in scripture" is one of your flawed arguments? may i blow them apart as well?

/can we still be friends afterwards?

latenite: This is *exactly* why I didn't want to give you a bulleted list.

because you don't like to indicate (and itemize) the point(s) you are making? is this wise?

latenite: I *knew* with 100% certainty that you would take my interpretation of the passage and pick apart the semantics,

you know who else complains about semantics? the atheist anti-theist idiotic brigade i "argue" with regularly here on fark, because their words have no meaning and they make no effort whatsoever to define and understand the terms that are constantly used in these type of discussions, so do you really wanna join that team?

as long as we can agree on what words mean (and how they are used) then EVEN if we disagree with each other's ideas, we can at least properly argue a point. if you wish to play humpty dumpty with me, i will eat your lunch each and every time (fair warning)

latenite: Again, the "Hey Dad" rule applies in any instance I can think of in reference to work. If your child said "Hey Dad! Watch me

latenite: "Hey Dad! Watch me understand!"

not understanding VS understanding


which action is taken that separates the first one from the second?

latenite: or "Watch me listen!"

listening


not listening


which action is taken that separates the first one from the second?

I will WATCH you and wait to SEE if you LISTEN and UNDERSTAND.

/waits patiently

latenite: The CoC is highly adept at misinterpreting the word "work" to their own ends and teaching the error accordingly cutting through the BS and getting right to the point.

which is probably why we are not as popular as other flavors...

/maybe if we brought some emotional baggage to the table, people would enjoy us more?

maybe all COC's are vulcans?

//certainly as entertaining

I drunk what: latenite: because that's what *every* ICOC member is trained to do (whether they realize it or not), like good little clones of Kip McKean. And you said it wasn't a trick question. BS!!!

calm down lad, no need to get angry, let's just pretend to be two civilized Christians having a nice little conversation shall we?

Apologies for the outburst, but I've been sooo frustrated trying to discuss issues like this with CoC (International and mainline) members in the past. The subtleties and implications of the gospel laid out by Paul in the first eight verses of I Cor. are deeper than many realize and require a great deal of exposition and cross reference with other scriptures if you want to understand completely what the gospel both is and what it isn't. CoC members seem to want everything boiled down to a first-grade level; fine in some cases, but not for others. In this case, the simpler it's boiled down to, the easier it is to play semantic games.

latenite: You can blow my flawed arguments apart all day; it's Paul's intent in scripture that matters, and that's what you're in disagreement with

and what happens when "paul's intent in scripture" is one of your flawed arguments? may i blow them apart as well?

/can we still be friends afterwards?

My arguments may be flawed in that there isn't practical time and room to explain them fully here. I don't think the essential truth is flawed at all.

latenite: This is *exactly* why I didn't want to give you a bulleted list.

because you don't like to indicate (and itemize) the point(s) you are making? is this wise?

Because when we're splitting hairs as finely as we are regarding what the definition of a "work" is, etc., a simple bulleted list is too blunt an instrument.

latenite: I *knew* with 100% certainty that you would take my interpretation of the passage and pick apart the semantics,

you know who else complains about semantics? the atheist anti-theist idiotic brigade i "argue" with regularly here on fark, because their words have no meaning and they make no effort whatsoever to define and understand the terms that are constantly used in these type of discussions, so do you really wanna join that team?

as long as we can agree on what words mean (and how they are used) then EVEN if we disagree with each other's ideas, we can at least properly argue a point. if you wish to play humpty dumpty with me, i will eat your lunch each and every time (fair warning)

When you can't agree on the definition of a simple term like "work", you can see how patience would run short when trying to agree the simple meaning of so many others.

latenite: Again, the "Hey Dad" rule applies in any instance I can think of in reference to work. If your child said "Hey Dad! Watch me

latenite: "Hey Dad! Watch me understand!"

not understanding VS understanding


which action is taken that separates the first one from the second?

latenite: or "Watch me listen!"

which action is taken that separates the first one from the second?

I will WATCH you and wait to SEE if you LISTEN and UNDERSTAND.

/waits patiently

This is why I accuse CoC'ers of semantic games. It seems they take simple concepts and definitions and bend and warp them to fit their desired theology.

Yes, you can give indications of hearing or understanding such as holding your hand to your ear, or raising your hand as you understand something, and I'll even grant you that those can be considered "works" under the definition of ergon. But those are indicators only; they are not the same thing! I can give all the body language to my wife that I'm listening, but if I don't care what she's saying and there are other distractions, I might be able to mislead her into thinking I heard and understood when I really didn't. You can't always tell from outside indicators ("works", if you choose) what's happening on the inside. That's one of the reasons that "listening", "understanding", etc. do not qualify as works under the Biblical use of ergon.

BTW, I have discussed the meaning of ergon in the past with a seminary friend of mine (new window) that teaches Greek and New Testament. He is in agreement that things like hearing, listening, and understanding do not fit the definition of "works" as used in scripture. Drop Mark a line if you wish to confirm. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I don't know when they'll close the thread, but you might want to use my e-mail at kr­ec­kma­ntoo­hay­com to continue the discussion.

latenite: I don't know when they'll close the thread, but you might want to use my e-mail at kreckmantoohaycom to continue the discussion

likewise i have EIP if you need it, however i mainly prefer to discuss things here in the open public forum, which saves me time of having to repeat stuff, and to ensure that these discussions reach the most people as possible

of course even if we don't conclude something here i'm sure another thread will pop up just ripe for the picking

latenite: Yes, you can give indications of hearing or understanding such as holding your hand to your ear, or raising your hand as you understand something, and I'll even grant you that those can be considered "works" under the definition of ergon. But those are indicators only; they are not the same thing!

and if i told you that baptism is AN INDICATOR of your obedience to God would you believe me? i find it interesting that you'll grant me that hearing, understanding, believing, etc.. ARE WORKS under your own definition, yet in the very same breath you will insist that they don't qualify because your expert friend (in his infinite wisdom) decided that they don't count...

i'd love to drop him a line and confirm your claim, however i'm quite confident that he has undergone the same amount of brainwashing that you have so i doubt anything that i will say is going to change his mind

because i often engage in the horrible horrible persuasion tactics of using common sense and plain speak. for some reason i'm never able to impress certain deeply "educated" scholars and their age old traditional schools of thought, etc.. because in the end i usually wind up saying something they don't like

latenite: What evidence do you have to the contrary?

here's some, (new window) (watch all 11) and then tell me who do you think has a problem with understanding words and how they are used...

/and why?

i wish i could find a more current example, except it seems that certain groups no longer wish to have their beliefs challenged, since it obviously didn't produce the results they initially hoped for

and just like Mr. Ankerberg you also feel the need to appeal to an "advanced level of understanding" because you both seem to be under the impression that the gospel cannot be understood by a layman, rather only through the guidance (and coaching) of doctorates, scribes, and gurus

and by coaching i am referring to the constant need of Mr. Ankerberg to "re-educate and persuade" you during the little breaks, because obviously those COC put some strange ideas in your head during the debate causing you to think for yourself, which needs immediate correction and realignment back to the acceptable version of doctrine

...there are interesting little gems you can find in these sort of debates if you are looking

latenite: I can give all the body language to my wife that I'm listening, but if I don't care what she's saying and there are other distractions, I might be able to mislead her into thinking I heard and understood when I really didn't.

*ahem*

I drunk what: listening

not listening

which action is taken that separates the first one from the second?

I will WATCH you and wait to SEE if you LISTEN and UNDERSTAND.

/waits patiently

//bolded for clarity
///lemme guess, certain actions don't qualify as work?
//[citation needed]

2041. ergon 2042 >>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

work
Original Word: ἔργον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: ergon
Phonetic Spelling: (er'-gon)
Short Definition: work, labor, action, deed
Definition: work, task, employment; a deed, action; that which is wrought or made, a work.



2041 érgon (from ergō, "to work, accomplish") - a work or worker who accomplishes something. 2041 /érgon ("work") is a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire (intension, purpose).


Word Origin
from a prim. verb erdó (to do)
Definition
work
NASB Word Usage
action (1), behavior (1), deed (13), deeds (52), doing (1), effectual (1), labor (1), result (1), task (1), what...done (1), work (34), works (62).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation
All rights reserved Lockman.org

deed, doing, labor, work.

From a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act -- deed, doing, labour, work.

ἔργα (erga) − 58 Occurrences

ἔργοις (ergois) − 13 Occurrences

ἔργον (ergon) − 38 Occurrences

ἔργου (ergou) − 8 Occurrences

ἔργῳ (ergō) − 10 Occurrences

ἔργων (ergōn) − 42 Occurrences ~your link

so i guess the real question is:

Do you have the inner desire to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND?

would you like me to ask an unbiased 3rd party? i have plenty of them here...

/some of them are even half-way intelligent

latenite: I drunk what: So to recap, your complete list of requirements, is that one must:

1. Hear (even though it's not stated anywhere in these passages you are quite certain that it can be inferred)

2. Believe (again not stated anywhere, but you are quite certain that it can be inferred)*

...In order to be Saved?

and, correct me if i'm wrong, but you also seem to be insinuating that this "gospel" that Paul is referring to is simply the passages quoted above (verses 1-8), correct?

/* an interesting note that "belief" is mentioned by Paul, warning against having "believed in vain", i wonder what that means?

This is *exactly* why I didn't want to give you a bulleted list. I *knew* with 100% certainty that you would take my interpretation of the passage and pick apart the semantics, because that's what *every* ICOC member is trained to do (whether they realize it or not), like good little clones of Kip McKean. And you said it wasn't a trick question. BS!!! That's why I said to make your own bulleted list. You can blow my flawed arguments apart all day; it's Paul's intent in scripture that matters, and that's what you're in disagreement with.

BTW i don't know if you had noticed yet, but we still seem to be missing REPENTANCE and CONFESSION, but i'm guessing you don't consider those to be actions either, huh? could you at least account for why they aren't mentioned (or asserted) in this final and complete [paul's intent] gospel of yours?

so you can still be saved without those things as well?