By the same hermeneutic one can also say that crossing the Red Sea or practicing polygamy is a requirement for salvation. God's word is not a buffet where one can pick and choose what is a requirement for salvation. There is such a thing called context. I am afraid you have fallen into the error of eisogesis where you add more to the Word of God that is there. John 14 is not a requirement for salvation anymore than Genesis 1 is. Which such a hermeneutic, one can create any religion according to his fancy, including Pentecostalism.

There are plenty of passages that clearly reveal the way to salvation, there is no need to look under a rock to find some.

The only problem is that the passage does not state that that is a requirement of salvation. You can't pick out a passage that is dedicated to Christians and apply it sinners seeking salvation. The scripture does not make it a requirement of salvation and neither should you.

I prescribe you the immediate context.
________________________________________

"I made the long explanation of salvation because nearly everyone on these threads seems to believe that I am trying to earn my salvation by works. I could not just give a simple answer of "1" or "2" because if we believe the entire word of God, obedience to the Word of God is required and therefore both apply, even though obedience is not earning our salvation—any more than an earthly son is earning sonship from his earthly father by obeying him."

Nice mumbo jumbo. But you can't have it both ways. It's either of grace or of works. Not both.

I believe your statement. The only problem with it is that there is no scritural warrant for you to restrict it only to ceremonial law. If that's what Paul wanted to state then he could have just stated it. Works is any activity one does to gain salvation. It is not simply restricted to the rituals in the Jewis religion. Otherwise, the passage in James, that I am sure you like to quote would make no sense. In some passages you may have an argument, but definitely not in Ephesians for (1)no such definition can be found in the immediate context and (2) Ephesians is a Gentile church.

Work is work. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever you do in this life to earn salvation is indeed a ritual. You can't get around it.

Try the devastating truth. I gave you a spiritual catscan free of charge. You should be thankful.

Then try reading your Bible for a change.

For by grace are ye saved, through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast.

"You are not going to be saved without good works."

You also stated:

"Being martyred for a false gospel is no different from dying in your sins because you will not hear the Word of God and thinking you have it all when you have refused to live in obedience to the entire counsel of God. The end result is the same."

It's customary for false religionists to try to have it both ways but's its nothing that a doctor of truth can't easily remedy.

If you are doint it to earn your way to heaven, then yes. The difference between Wayne and yourself is that he does good works because he is saved; you do it to earn your way to heaven.

Newsflash: Your good works are as thilthy rags.

Answer: God before the foundations of the world presdestined me to confront you so that you would get up from your elitist lazy-boy and realize that God loves your neighbor just as much as he loves you.
_______________________________________
" Record comments must be Yamil followed by JD!!!!!"

Yep. That's why I am the Weapon of Mass Instruction. It's my job.
_______________________________________

Donnie wrote:

"If we believe that Jesus died for everyone in the world, then obviously no one would go to hell."

Actually the KJV translation is more accurate then mere "love". There are many different types of love. The KJV translators could had not chosen a better word to describe the love of I Corinthians 13 than "charity."

You have been nominated for this week's "Most Ridiculous Statement" award.

Your entry:

"Our Lord is a "racist" (as the world knows this word)."

Yes. Definitely. Unfortunately, noone has been able to prove it to be an inaccurate eschatological hermeneutic. Odds are that noone will since it is also based on the historic-grammatical form of interpretation that I and JD ascribe to (and others in theory but not in practice).

But, yes, it would include these as well.
_______________________________________

"What one does not realize is that a correct view of both will work together."

Although I would cateforize myself a dispensationalist, I preffer the approach mentioned above. They both must be weighed to what the Scripture states versus what they are programmed to do. Covenant theology sees unity where dispensationalism sees none. You place them together and you will not be far from the mark. Dispensationalism does poorly in OT theology, while Covenant theolgy thrives in the OT.

God did not make you gay anymore than he made a pedaphile inclined to molest children or the rapist delight in sadism. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to attest to it. Homosexuality is a sin not a biological defect. That's the level of dark intelligence one reaches when he is willing to accept evolution over God's word.