What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

[lori4dogs]

"Christians not Catholics. To me there is a difference. I follow the Bible, not a cult, not a world religion."

You are saying that I'm not a Christian. Yet, I have repented of my sins, turned to Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior. What more do you say the bible says is required?

 

[DHK]

"Christians not Catholics. To me there is a difference. I follow the Bible, not a cult, not a world religion."

You are saying that I'm not a Christian.

I cannot speak for an individual person.
What I have said many times and firmly believe is this:
One cannot believe in the saving grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is presented in the NT, and believe in the way of salvation as it is presented in the RCC at the same time. It is an impossibility. The two are at extreme opposites with each other. One is the gospel of the Bible; the other is a false gospel which Paul refers to those who teach it as "anathema." It is a message that sends people to hell. How can one believe in a message that sends people to hell and a message that points people to heaven at the same time. One cannot. It is impossible. It is just as impossible to believe in Islam and Christianity at the same time.

 

[DHK]

DHK said: The RCC started with a pagan ruler called Constantine who paganized what was called Christianity. He introduced many pagan customs at that time. And what was "Christian" about that religion was now simply paganized Christianity, not Biblical Christianity at all.

And yet here is what the 'biblical Christians' believed before Constantine and the 'paganization' you are claiming. No where do you find the Church teaching differently in the Early Church with the exception of Tertullian who wavered somewhat on baptism.


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Baptismal regeneration was one of the first heresies of Christianity. No where in the Bible do you find an infant being baptize.
Repent and be baptized. Can an infant be repent?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (and then be baptized) Can an infant believe?
Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Can an infant call upon the name of the Lord. Afterward is baptism.

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC. He has been labeled "The Father of Arianism." And yet you trust him??

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"

Of course DHK will say that all the ECF's were apostates. Can't buy it.

Again, for the reasons given, baptismal regeneration is one of the greatest heresies ever to enter Christianity and was never practiced by early Christians. Where in the Bible was an infant ever baptized?

 

[lori4dogs]

Well, DHK, when you make a statement like "Christians, not Catholics" you include me as an individual. You do this a lot and it is as offensive and erroneous as if I were to say 'Christians, not Baptists.'

You always zero in on the Roman Catholic Church as if there are not other very large denominations that share the RCC's teaching on the gospel. You seem to have a special hatred for Roman Catholicism that you don't have for Orthodox and Anglican Catholicism. Even Lutherans have a shared statement with the RCC on justification. (You have yet to address that) Are only IFB's right??

 

[DHK]

Well, DHK, when you make a statement like "Christians, not Catholics" you include me as an individual. You do this a lot and it is as offensive and erroneous as if I were to say 'Christians, not Baptists.'

You can't have it both ways.
Either you believe that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph.2:8,9).
Or one believes that salvation is by works--a contradiction of Eph.2:8,9.
Which is it?
Every religion in the world: Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and all the cults, and the RCC believe that salvation is through works, doing good.
True Christianity believes the Bible and says that it is by grace through faith and stands in opposition to all other religions of the world. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ. It is not through Jesus Christ plus works.
That is what makes the RCC a false religion.

You always zero in on the Roman Catholic Church as if there are not other very large denominations that share the RCC's teaching on the gospel. You seem to have a special hatred for Roman Catholicism that you don't have for Orthodox and Anglican Catholicism.

Approaching a billion members the Orthodox and Anglican churches dwarf in size in comparison to the RCC. They are also offshoots of the RCC, and have many doctrines in common. Our resident Orthodox therefore stands up in defense for RCC doctrine almost every time. So does our resident Anglican most of the time.

Even Lutherans have a shared statement with the RCC on justification. (You have yet to address that) Are only IFB's right??

I read it. Many of the terms such as "justification" are eventually redefined. That is called "neo-orthodoxy. It is a heretical movement. To give a meaning to an orthodox theological term and make it mean something that it doesn't in order to bring unity is deceptive and wrong.

 

[lori4dogs]

"Either you believe that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph.2:8,9)"

I could never in my lifetime, do enough good works to get into heaven on my own strength. We Catholics don't think we can work our way into heaven, honest! On the other hand we don't think we can sit on our behinds and expect Jesus to be pleased.

Section 1996 of the Catechism says:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (John 4:14; 7:38-39.)

Sections 161-162 the Catechism says:

(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man...

Sure seems to affirm that salvation is by 'Grace through faith'.

 

[Trotter]

Sure seems to affirm that salvation is by 'Grace through faith'.

And it would... if not for the rest of the junk lumped with it. If someone is baptized as a baby, grows up, and dies, do they go to hell? If the bible is to be believed, yes they do. Why? Because they never put THEIR faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done.

Either you've got Him or you don't. Baptism, or sprinkling water on an infant's head (which is not a real baptism), does nothing to effect salvation. Baptist is an outward show of the inward change, not the other way around. This is one huge difference between the RCC and most Christian denominations.

DHK is right on the money on this one. And I'm not even IFB! I am SBC, albeit a very fundamental one.

Salvation is of God alone, and is kept by God alone. It is through grace and not of works, although works will flow out of the recipient of that grace. The one who has received that salvation should follow it in believer's baptism as shown in the bible... but any baptism before this is just making them a wet sinner (or a wet baby).

Sounds like you need to stop kissing the pope's ring and start reading the scriptures and thinking for yourself.

 

[lori4dogs]

'If someone is baptized as a baby, grows up, and dies, do they go to hell? If the bible is to be believed, yes they do. Why? Because they never put THEIR faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done."

Trotter: How can you say that a person that has been baptized as a baby will never put their faith in Jesus Christ??

I will quote the clear teaching of the Catholic Church again: Sections 161-162 the Catechism says:

(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man...

If a person never puts their faith and trust in Jesus, regardless of whether they are baptized, and die then they are not saved.

 

[lori4dogs]

Trotter: I was SBC for years, graduated from an SBC college and believed Catholics were hell-bound. Now I'm Catholic and know better.

 

[Trotter]

How can you say that a person that has been baptized as a baby will never put their faith in Jesus Christ??

I didn't. Obviously you jumped to that conclusion, though.

The simple rule is the one Jesus gave us: "You must be born again."

I will quote the clear teaching of the Catholic Church again: Sections 161-162 the Catechism says:

(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man...

I wouldn't say "clear" by any means... the "teachings" are a whole lot more than just the plain and simple truth that the bible gives all by itself. Sections 161-162...? And how many sections are there? And how many sections contradict themselves or the bible? And just why would anyone have to got hrough all that when God's word speaks for itself?

Judging by the elipses, a lot of those have been left out. Not that I would want to read them (or would bother), but picking and choosing bits and pieces can make anything say whatever you want it to say.

If a person never puts their faith and trust in Jesus, regardless of whether they are baptized, and die then they are not saved.

Exactly. Jesus saves, not the Church, not baptism, not the pope, and certainly not a false paganized gospel.

 

[lori4dogs]

"Judging by the elipses, a lot of those have been left out. Not that I would want to read them (or would bother)"

It's called contempt before investigation. You remind me of me. I used to just believe what I'd been told before I began to study on my own.

BTW, the Catholic Church teaches we are saved through the shed blood of Jesus at calvary.

 

[DHK]

BTW, the Catholic Church teaches we are saved through the shed blood of Jesus at calvary.

The RCC Catechism contradicts itself in many places. This is so because it can't even define correctly basic theological terms like grace, new birth, etc.

First, it states that no one can enter heaven without being born again.
Then it defines "born again" as baptism, a complete butchering of Scripture.
Thus the belief is the heretical teaching of baptismal regeneration is taught.
Therefore the RCC does not teach that a person goes to heaven through Christ but through their baptism. Their teaching is clear. Baptism is a work, a work of man not of God. The RCC teaches one goes to heaven by their works.

 

[lori4dogs]

The RCC Catechism contradicts itself in many places. This is so because it can't even define correctly basic theological terms like grace, new birth, etc.

First, it states that no one can enter heaven without being born again.
Then it defines "born again" as baptism, a complete butchering of Scripture.
Thus the belief is the heretical teaching of baptismal regeneration is taught.
Therefore the RCC does not teach that a person goes to heaven through Christ but through their baptism. Their teaching is clear. Baptism is a work, a work of man not of God. The RCC teaches one goes to heaven by their works.

Born by water AND the Spirit. Your the ones that 'spin it'.

"Therefore the RCC does not teach that a person goes to heaven through Christ but through their baptism." Wrong, the Church teaches it is through Christ but that baptism AND faith are necessary.

 

[Trotter]

I used to just believe what I'd been told before I began to study on my own.

Everything you are posting is not from your own study. You are parroting and pasting the heretical malarkey of the Catholic Church. This is the same "church" that believes the word's of the pope supersede scripture... and yet you are spouting it off left and right.

Please know, Lori, I bear no ill will toward you or anyone else who is in the Catholic Church. My beef is with the teachings of the Church. I know for a fact that there are many who are truly saved within the church... but I also know that most would not know true salvation of it slapped them in the face because it is not what the Church teaches. Honestly, most don't even know what the Church teaches at all as they are only there for Easter and Christmas if then (the same as in all churches). The sad part is that they believe that because some guy in a robe sprinkled their head when they were a baby they are going to heaven when they die... after some time in purgatory and a lot of prayers from loved ones, of course (neither of which are scriptural).

the Church teaches it is through Christ but that baptism AND faith are necessary.

And it is completely wrong. Salvation through grace by faith, period. Baptism has nothing to do with it. This is yet another example of the Catholic Church (whatever flavor) twisting scripture.

 

[DHK]

Born by water AND the Spirit. Your the ones that 'spin it'.

"Therefore the RCC does not teach that a person goes to heaven through Christ but through their baptism." Wrong, the Church teaches it is through Christ but that baptism AND faith are necessary.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus is the way; not baptism. Don't you believe him. Did he lie?

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

When his work on the cross was finished he said: "It is finished," and then died. But you don't believe him. His sacrifice was not enough. His blood wasn't sufficient. You say it was his blood + baptism, in essence calling Christ a liar. Don't you think that is a tad blasphemous?

 

[lori4dogs]

Of course Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Not an issue here.

Let's look at the passage yet again:

Clearly, the context implies that born of “water and the Spirit” refers to baptism. John tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22). Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John's Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:9-13) and in the Johannine tradition (1 John 5:7). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that John understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

You who reject baptismal regeneration usually deny that “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to baptism. Most on this board argue that “water” refers to the “water of childbirth.” On this view, Jesus means that unless one is born of water (at his physical birth) and again of the Spirit (in a spiritual birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

I am also told that the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). "The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistic unit." It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other."

Catholics are not saying that faith in Jesus (the way, the truth, and the life) is not necessary for salvation, obviously it is. We are saying that baptism is also necessary (as do most non-Catholics as well) and that Baptist have twisted the clear meaning of scripture in the gospel of John. The Church has ALWAYS interpreted this passage to be a clear reference to baptism and the baptist view is invented.

 

[Marcia]

It means exactly that. I realize you don't like this verse, just like you don't like a lot of other verses, and you put your own spin on all of them. That's not a bad thing, it's just human nature (maybe it is bad). About two pastors ago in our church, the pastor did a sermon on this verse at prayer meeting and began by saying it was one of the hardest passages he had ever tried to understand. Then he went about putting his spin on it because he could not wrap his mind around working to maintain our own salvation.

Well, many commentators and scholars and pastors beg to differ. There is nothing in the verse that is difficult at all. "Work out" does not mean you maintain your salvation. If one reads this in context, that is not what it is saying at all. And one always reads any passage in light of the rest of the book and in light of all scripture.

Look at what is above this in the previous verses - how Jesus, very God, came and took the form of a servant. This should put us in awe! This is where fear and trembling come from, that every knee one day will bow before Christ. And what does it say right after - "For it is God who is at work in you." It is not you maintaining salvation.

Yes he did, and nowhere did he say it more eloquently than in the 3rd chapter of Philippians where he makes it clear his goal was Heaven. That is the reward he was seeking, nothing more and nothing less. Same thing as in the 2nd chapter. If so, then either Galatians 3:3 is wrong or a whole lot of the rest of the N.T. is wrong

Yes, the goal but not a reward. You are going to have throw out Gal 3:3 and a whole bunch of passages if you think you bring yourself salvation. Tell me, Zenas, how do you know when you fail at this? What is the measure? Is it lying x number of times? Adultery? Stealing? How do we know if we are saved or not?

. Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness surpasses the scribes and the pharisees you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." James said, "The fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Furthermore, at least eight men other than Jesus are referred to in the N.T. as being righteous: Abel, Abraham, Cornelius, John the Baptist, Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea, Lot and Simeon.

These men referred to as righteous were righteous because of their faith.

I want to know how you know you are righteous enough to be saved?

 

[DHK]

Of course Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Not an issue here.

Let's look at the passage yet again:

Clearly, the context implies that born of “water and the Spirit” refers to baptism. John tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22).

The context is not baptism. There is no "immediately" in verse 22.

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

In fact it is more likely there was a gap of time here. Jesus was in Jerusalem talking with Jerusalem, then after some time he went into the regions beyond Jerusalem in the land of Judea with his disciples and baptized, though it was not him, but his disciples that baptized. Remember he didn't have a corvette. It took time to travel.

Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John's Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:9-13) and in the Johannine tradition (1 John 5:7). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that John understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

You are reading RCC terminology into the Bible. There are no sacraments into the Bible and no one would have understood what one was.
Secondly, Jesus was talking to a Jewish Rabbi, a teacher and a leader of the Jews, a member of the Sanhedrin. The Jews don't baptize. The last thing that Nicodemus would have had on his mind would have been baptism. He also came to Jesus by night. There would have been no baptisms taking place. They were in the midst of Jerusalem probably near the Temple. You are not taking into consideration the immediate context.

You who reject baptismal regeneration usually deny that “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to baptism. Most on this board argue that “water” refers to the “water of childbirth.” On this view, Jesus means that unless one is born of water (at his physical birth) and again of the Spirit (in a spiritual birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I won't present to you that argument. I will argue strictly from the Scriptures.

A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

So what is your point? You have not contradicted the other point of view but supported it. One must be born of the flesh (natural birth) and of the Spirit (Spiritual birth) spiritual birth. One needs both. It is not vs. but "and" in the other point of view. It is you that misunderstands their view point. Don't try to refute something you clearly don't understand. The water doesn't come out of nowhere. It is the amniotic fluid in the first birth--the flesh.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh--a physical birth--the water referring to the amniotic fluid of that physical birth.
That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit--a spiritual birth--the Spirit referring to the Holy Spirit.
That is their view and it is a good one, a plausible one.

If you are born once you will die twice; if you are born twice you will die once.

I am also told that the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). "The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistic unit." It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other."

That doesn't even make sense.

Catholics are not saying that faith in Jesus (the way, the truth, and the life) is not necessary for salvation. We are saying that baptism is necessary (as do most non-Catholics as well) and that Baptist have twisted the clear meaning of scripture in the gospel of John. The Church has ALWAYS interpreted this passage to be a clear reference to baptism and the baptist view is clearly invented.

And the Catholics are wrong, and their view is heretical and in opposition to all other passages of Scripture in the Bible. It teaches that Jesus is not the only way to heaven but it must be Jesus plus baptism. It teaches that Jesus blood was not sufficient to atone for our sins, but you had to atone for it too through baptism. This heresy, blasphemy!

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So what does the verse mean?
First, would you agree that in the 367 times that "water" is used in the Bible, every time it is used it must refer to Baptism? No it doesn't. So it doesn't have to here either. To force it to refer to baptism is simply to force a RCC view in the passage and nothing more.

What is water used for? What is it's common usage? Commonly it is used for cleaning, washing.
Remember that Nicodemus was a Rabbi, a teacher of the Jews. He would have known the OT very well. With the mention of water his mind probably would have gone back to passages like Psalms 119:9

Psalms 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
--How do I cleanse my way? By taking heed according to thy word.
The Word of God is a cleansing agent.

Jesus said the same thing.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--It is the Word of God that cleans a person.

Now keep in mind the verse. One is born again by two agents and only two agents. One is water and the other is the Spirit. We all agree that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. So we need to find out what the water is symbolic of. We rule out baptism because contextually it doesn't fit.

Water is a cleansing agent. Both in the OT and in the NT it represents the Word of God.
Now let's go further.
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--The word "begat" is the same as "born or born again."
We are born again through the Word of God.
There are only two agents by which a person is born again: one is the Word and the other is the Holy Spirit. Water is representative of the Word.

See again.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--Here it could not be made any plainer. One is born again by the Word of God. That is what it says. There are only two agents by which one is born again: water--the Word, and the Holy Spirit.
Why must this be so?
Because the gospel is necessary for one to be born again. One must hear the Word of God to be saved. Without the gospel message it is impossible to be saved.
Secondly without the Spirit of God it is impossible to be saved.
Thus water represents the Word of God. Both the Word of God and the Spirit of God are absolutely necessary to be saved. This is what the Scripture teaches. These are the two agents of John 3:5. One cannot be saved without the Word; without the Holy Spirit.

Salvation is by faith. It comes by receiving Christ as one's savior, and that by faith. That is how one is born again.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--It plainly teaches us that one is born of God by receiving Christ by believing on his name.

 

[Trotter]

If baptism is required for salvation then Jesus lied to the thief hanging on the cross beside Him as there was no way he was baptized before he died. So... did the thief go to heaven with Jesus, or did Jesus lie to him?

 

[Zenas]

If you believe that works are required either for salvation or to maintain salvation then:
1. you believe that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to cover your sins.
2. you must help Christ in some way to atone for your sins.
3. Christ is not the only way to heaven; there must be some other way.
4. That "other way" is partly through you.
5. You have set yourself as "a way" through heaven, for it is your works that you are counting on to get you to heaven.

I only know what the Bible says about righteousness and good works. I cannot discard whole chapters just because they seem to be at odds with Ephesians 2:8-9, which you love to cite. By the way, they are not at odds with each other. The works Paul was talking about in those verses are works of the law—circumcision, dietary rules, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc. I know you have read these so I won’t belabor the point, but here are a typical few of the commands I see when I read my bible:

“Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” Matthew 7:21.

The parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30 rewards good works and punishes passivity.

Why are the sheep invited into His kingdom and the goats sent away to eternal punishment in Matthew 25:31-46? Because of good works and lack of good works, respectively.

The final judgment, in Revelation 20:12-13, says men will be judged according to their deeds. (And no, DHK, this is not a judgment just for the wicked. It is the only judgment and every one of us will experience it.)

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23.

This is only a small sample of scripture where we are commanded to do works of righteousness. And did you notice something they all had in common? Not a single passage mentions anything about faith. I’m not saying faith is superfluous, but I do say emphatically it is only the first step.

I’m sorry you think I believe the blood of Christ is not sufficient. Of course it is sufficient if He wanted it to be, but scripture is clear He wants more from us. Getting saved is a cooperative effort between Jesus and me. He makes it possible but I must work for it. It’s like a benefactor who tells a child, “I want you to go to college and to make it possible I will furnish all the money you need to go and graduate. The child says, “This is great! Thank you. I accept your offer.” But the child goes to college and then doesn’t study and drops out. He will never graduate, despite the gracious benefactor making it possible.

6. All of the above is blasphemy because it denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ as well as the atonement of Christ and makes the act of God imputing His righteousness to you impossible.

As I stated above, it does not deny the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus, which is the sine qua non of salvation. However, despite that song "Nothing But the Blood" (which I haven't heard lately because our church has gone to CCM), scripture tells us it takes more to gain entry into Heaven. See, e.g., the scripture cited above. And by the way, righteousness isn't imputed. We are actually cleansed and made righteous from the inside out by the saving grace of Christ.