How To Get To Heaven When You Die

748,088 Views | 6595 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by Oldbear83
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FB responses in all caps (not for emphasis but delineation)

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear: "I don't engage in any who is liked better by Jesus. Hopefully we all see each other there when it's all said and done."

Sorry but you have. You got into a 'which is better?' argument with BusyTarpDuster with a constant implication that the Roman church is the original one created by Christ, which certainly is hubris.

DISAGREE. I HAD TO IGNORE HIM AS IT JUST DEVOLVED INTO HIM SCREAMING NAMES AT PEOPLE. IT NEVER IS WHO IS BETTER ITNIS ABLUT RIGHT AJD WRING. IF YOU READ RHE CHURCH FATHERS EXTENSIVELY YOULL SEE MANY THESE SAME TOOICS DISCUSSED MILLENNIA AGO





FB: "I think maybe you're projecting or reading something into my words. Or maybe it is causing you to ponder them and question. That's why I entertain these discussion etc anyway. I always learn something."

I like our discussions, but people often have bias to which they are blind. I think you would profit if you looked at your posts from the other perspective, especially since I am not seeking argument but feel compelled to point out errors as I see them.

Aside from the ego stroke that some pursue, I think the main value to these forums is to gain that additional perspective and find new insight to Scripture and concepts.

COULDNT AGREE MORE. ONCE ONE STOPS LEARNING ALL IS LOST. AS A MERE MAN I AM CAPABLE OF MAKING MISTAKES AND MAYBE EVEN BEING WRONG FROM TIME TO TIME. IM OPEN TO THOSE POSSIBILITIES AS I LEARN AND DISCUSS


FB: "Even if it's a new surprise (I think for example it was here someone said the shroud of Turin or our lady of Guadalupe were works of the devil. Never ever heard that before so I learned that was even possible for a Christian to think despite my shock) of how or why someone may believe something and then I can formulate an opinion jn how that may or may not affect them or me or people I love etc."

That one can be a little tricky. I do not think Satan can use God's work for his own advantage, but I do think that it is unwise to place too much trust in tangible artifacts (tokenism) or esoteric cosmology. Keep it simple, you know?

How would YOU EVEN MEASURE SUCH TRUST? SEEMS PROTESTANTS ARE GREAT AT MEASURING THINGS AND KNOWING WHEN IS ENOUGH AND HIW BOT TO DO TOO MUCH. That's overthinking IT IN MY OPINION.

WHAT TRUST IS PLACED IN AN ARTIFACT? ITS MORE A WINK OR A NOD FROM GOD IN THIS TEMPORAL WORLD OF TANGIBLE EVIDENCE HE LOVES US AND GIVES US A SIGN.


FB: "I even saw in a comment today someone said "God can't sin". Of course he can. He's God. There's nothing he can't do. He never would as I understand it but why would I possibly think my brain could limit God."

Well, let's consider that. It's one thing to say God can do anything, but there are limits as soon as something exists. For example, suppose someone says because 'God is Love' that means everyone goes to Heaven no matter what they have done, and indeed whether they even repent. But if that were the case, either God would have to abandon the Justice he has said he loves, or else everyone who sins would be compelled to repent even against their will, if 'everyone goes to Heaven'. Ergo, if we can believe what God has put into Scripture, then our choices have consequences and God is perfectly and eternally good and holy, so as far as the word has any meaning, no, God cannot sin because He has already established a universe where He never will, and so there is no possibility of it whatsoever.

To put it another way, it's not your brain or mine limiting God, but God establishing for us what He means, and making clear in words and example how He works.

YOURE CONTORTING CAN WITH WOULD. ID NEVER DEIGN TO SUGGEST WHAT GOD CAN OR CANT DO. I HAVE AN OPINION ON WHAT HE WOUKD IR MAY DO BUT EVEN THAT IS REALLY IRRELEVANT

I think the problem many people have with God, is understanding how God can be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. But there the problem is our limited understanding, not God's scope.

MANY THAT WORRY ANOUT THIS ALSO THINK THEY KNOW WHAT A JUDGEMENT OUTCOME WOULD BE. WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT GOD HAS ACCESS TO IN HIS FINAL JUDGEMENT OF SOUL AND I THINK WED ALL AGREE INKY THAT HIS JUDGMENT WILL BE JUST

For more on that, since you are a Catholic you may find G.K. Chesterton worth your attention on these points. Even though I am Baptist, I like Chesterton's logic and persuasive argument.

HAVENT READ HIM. ILL TAKE A LOOK. THANKS FOR THE SUGGESTION

Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oi.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?




Oy vey

Peter is a man. Men are weak and flawed and sinners. Pope Francis was a terrible pope. Hardly even a Catholic some would say. They may make a good case. He was a man. He was flawed.

Just because Peter denied Christ doesn't invalidate that he was the rock upon which Christ's church on earth was built. God obviously chose weak and very very flawed people throughout the Bible to further his message here on earth. That's basically all He chose. Repeatedly.

Peter fit the bill almost perfectly them.

Well just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the word "it" (common Protestant argument though so points for consistency)
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.


Based on the fact Jesus appointed him. I'm not
Going to question Jesus. He felt Peter was best for that role that he put him in for whatever reasons he chose. Like how he knew Judas would betray him when he made him one of the 12. It was his inspired decision as God.

Jesus had no actual brothers
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.


Jesus had no actual brothers


I rather think the family, especially Mary, would disagree with you
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.


Jesus had no actual brothers


I rather think the family, especially Mary, would disagree with you


Oh man. Guess we can dig into that one as well. You're checking all the boxes brother.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.
No one can fully know the answer, but I can offer some thoughts. Scripture has always emphasized God's use of flawed instruments for his purpose. An example is King David, the adulterer and murderer who was called a man after God's own heart. Why? Because, like Peter, he had complete faith. God knew David would do everything that he asked.

Peter's flaws remind us that we have to trust and rely on God. The good works to which he calls us can only be accomplished through his grace. To focus on who founded more churches or who was related to Jesus is to miss the point. Indeed, Jesus rebuked the disciples for bickering about who among them was the greatest. Maybe he was teaching us something about what the heart of a leader should be.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?


Peter's role has nothing to do with being a superhero or a better disciple than the others. Yet it's clear that Peter was the rock to whom Jesus was referring. Of course Jesus himself is the foundation, but he knew the church would need a leader in his absence. Peter was simply the one best suited for the job.
Based on what?

John was the 'disciple Jesus loved' according to Scripture.

Paul founded more churches than anyone else at the time.

James had special credibility as Jesus' brother.

Et cetera.
No one can fully know the answer, but I can offer some thoughts. Scripture has always emphasized God's use of flawed instruments for his purpose. An example is King David, the adulterer and murderer who was called a man after God's own heart. Why? Because, like Peter, he had complete faith. That's how God knew David would do everything that he asked.

Peter's flaws remind us that we have to trust and rely on God. The good works to which he calls us can only be accomplished through his grace. To focus on who founded more churches or who was related to Jesus is to miss the point entirely. Indeed, Jesus rebuked the disciples for bickering about who among them was the greatest. Maybe Jesus was teaching us something about what the heart of a leader should be.


I would add the logic of applying accomplishments we as mere mortals may deem important is really completely irrelevant for the role Jesus tapped Peter to play.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?




Oy vey

Peter is a man. Men are weak and flawed and sinners. Pope Francis was a terrible pope. Hardly even a Catholic some would say. They may make a good case. He was a man. He was flawed.

Just because Peter denied Christ doesn't invalidate that he was the rock upon which Christ's church on earth was built. God obviously chose weak and very very flawed people throughout the Bible to further his message here on earth. That's basically all He chose. Repeatedly.

Peter fit the bill almost perfectly them.

Well just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the word "it" (common Protestant argument though so points for consistency)
It's worth noting that Peter was only in a position to deny Christ because he was in the high priest's courtyard to begin with. Most of the other disciples were lying low. Whoever was with him (probably John, if I recall correctly) didn't have much to say. Whatever sets Peter apart, it isn't the fact that he's afraid.

There's a kind of parallel in Matthew 14, where Peter begins to sink into the sea and Jesus calls him a man of little faith. Yet it was Peter who asked Jesus to call him out of the boat and onto the water. He was a doer, even to the point of being impulsive sometimes in his faith.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Fre3dombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.

It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.


I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
"Pope" is an RC title.

Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.

You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".




You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.

How is that obsessing?

Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.

that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.




I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"It".

As in Peter's faith.

And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.




You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
"shall not prevail against IT"

Faith, not the person.

If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.

Stop and consider:

How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?


That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.

I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.

Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.

Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.

Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.

You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.

Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.

It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.

The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.

If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?




Oy vey

Peter is a man. Men are weak and flawed and sinners. Pope Francis was a terrible pope. Hardly even a Catholic some would say. They may make a good case. He was a man. He was flawed.

Just because Peter denied Christ doesn't invalidate that he was the rock upon which Christ's church on earth was built. God obviously chose weak and very very flawed people throughout the Bible to further his message here on earth. That's basically all He chose. Repeatedly.

Peter fit the bill almost perfectly them.

Well just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the word "it" (common Protestant argument though so points for consistency)
It's worth noting that Peter was only in a position to deny Christ because he was in the high priest's courtyard to begin with. Most of the other disciples were lying low. Whoever was with him (probably John, if I recall correctly) didn't have much to say. Whatever sets Peter apart, it isn't the fact that he's afraid.

There's a kind of parallel in Matthew 14, where Peter begins to sink into the sea and Jesus calls him a man of little faith. Yet it was Peter who asked Jesus to call him out of the boat and onto the water. He was a doer, even to the point of being impulsive sometimes in his faith.


Agreed. And even his faith wasn't that of a simple mustard seed. A good warning for us all. But Catholics believe this temporal journey is arduous and God requires much of us while out Protestant friends believe it's comfortable and simple to be one of the chosen few of the many called.

Given that I'm surprised there's not 10x Protestants vs Catholics. Or maybe many have considered their pitch and thought it not worth the risk
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Catholics believe this temporal journey is arduous and God requires much of us while out Protestant friends believe it's comfortable and simple to be one of the chosen few of the many called."

Now this is a reason why I come to this forum. My church is behind the times, I guess, since we don't know what is required of our brothers and sisters in other denominations,

Sure, we read and hear things, but we don't really know what Christ asks of an individual follower.

I guess the Stephen Ministers and Royal Ambassadors and the PW groups are just sitting around playing games, not doing repairs on senior citizens homes, finding places for homeless people, or providing crisis relief.

Thanks for setting the record straight!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Of course God's attributes are eternal.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Of course God's attributes are eternal.
Then your entire argument has failed. You are arguing that God doesn't have to be holy. If God must be holy, then he must require perfect atonement. Not "lesser satisfaction". If God doesn't have to be holy, then the perfect sacrifice of his Son Jesus was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, not going to argue the point as y'all are intellectually well over my head. I am a simple, basic guy so I was wondering how, in this situation, one would define the difference between a Christian who is a Protestant and a Christian who is a Catholic.

I understand if this question is not worth your time. Although I have some peripheral issues with certain aspects of Catholicism, I do believe I shall see some in heaven.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Of course God's attributes are eternal.
Then your entire argument has failed. You are arguing that God doesn't have to be holy. If God must be holy, then he must require perfect atonement. Not "lesser satisfaction". If God doesn't have to be holy, then the perfect sacrifice of his Son Jesus was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?
I understand that Calvin ran into a serious problem with his predestinarian doctrine, that is, if salvation is entirely determined by God then why is atonement needed at all? He explained it by inventing the theory which you now take as both gospel truth and logical necessity. In fact it is neither. If human judges have the right to require less than perfect satisfaction, all the more so does God.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Ok, not going to argue the point as y'all are intellectually well over my head. I am a simple, basic guy so I was wondering how, in this situation, one would define the difference between a Christian who is a Protestant and a Christian who is a Catholic.

I understand if this question is not worth your time. Although I have some peripheral issues with certain aspects of Catholicism, I do believe I shall see some in heaven.
I'm hoping you're getting a pretty good idea by what's been going on this thread lately. We have a Roman Catholic who is steeped in Marian idolatry, one who believes in salvation by faith plus works, and one who just demonstrated that for Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, God's attributes can NOT be eternal.

Honest question - why do you believe you shall see some Catholics in heaven?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Ok, not going to argue the point as y'all are intellectually well over my head. I am a simple, basic guy so I was wondering how, in this situation, one would define the difference between a Christian who is a Protestant and a Christian who is a Catholic.

I understand if this question is not worth your time. Although I have some peripheral issues with certain aspects of Catholicism, I do believe I shall see some in heaven.
I want to give this question the time it deserves, but I'm going to be in trouble with my wife if I spend much longer talking theology on the internet this evening. Will follow up at the next opportunity.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Of course God's attributes are eternal.
Then your entire argument has failed. You are arguing that God doesn't have to be holy. If God must be holy, then he must require perfect atonement. Not "lesser satisfaction". If God doesn't have to be holy, then the perfect sacrifice of his Son Jesus was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?
I understand that Calvin ran into a serious problem with his predestinarian doctrine, that is, if salvation is entirely determined by God then why is atonement needed at all? He explained it by inventing the theory which you now take as both gospel truth and logical necessity. In fact it is neither. If human judges have the right to require less than perfect satisfaction, all the more so does God.
You're not grasping this at all. Do you understand what God's holiness means? Why God can not tolerate sin? And why reconciliation with a perfect God would require sinful man to be made perfect, i.e. atonement?

Do you understand that human judges and human systems of justice are fallen, that they are NOT holy and perfect like God?

The fact that you think all this was "invented" by Calvin shows that you really don't understand the Bible and Christianity at all, much less the Gospel.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

I've already explained the difference between absolute and moral necessity. Your difficulty is like that of a person who thinks the Constitution gives us the right to own nuclear weapons. You keep demanding to know whether we have the right to bear arms -- YES OR NO???

No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be that it depends. In other words yes, but with caveats. It's not that complicated, but you have to understand the historical (or theological) context. Otherwise this purblind "logic" of yours won't get you anywhere.

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.
And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.
Now you are really beginning to think.
I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.
Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.
No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.
Justice is indeed one of God's reasons, but it does not logically require your conclusion. See Summa Theologica III 46.

Our sins are against God alone. Thus he commits no sin by forgiving. See Psalm 51:6.
It most certainly is logically required. Forgiveness is one thing, but atonement is another. God does not sin by forgiving, but to reconcile us to him while we are still imperfect would be a violation of His justice and holiness. Perfect justice means all debts are paid. Forgiveness is just removing the responsibility for paying the debt, it does not erase the existence of the debt. Someone still has to eat the cost. That's why Jesus had to die - God decided to eat the cost himself.

These are basic and fundamental concepts in God's character and in salvation that you don't seem to understand. It's what even Roman Catholicism completely affirms.
See again the passage from Aquinas. RC affirms it as a necessity in the sense that God has determined it. It is not a necessity in the sense that it could not be otherwise. In other words, it is not a logical or absolute necessity.
WOW.

You, Aquinas, and RC can't be more wrong. God does not arbitrarily determine it, it is an absolute necessity based on God's eternal character. It would be no different than saying that it is actually possible for God to sin because God's holiness is only arbitrarily determined by Him. You are essentially saying that absolute truth does not exist. It is astounding how RC completely fails to understand this. It is no wonder that RC does not have the true Gospel, among all the other damnable errors she promotes.

And this doesn't even solve your sacraments problem. Even if God arbitrarily determined his perfect justice and holiness, your sacraments-based model of salvation would force God to act inconsistently within what he has determined - he would have to act unjustly in His justice. Does RC also teach that God's consistency is also determined and not absolute, and thus violable? God can say one thing and do otherwise?

There are various opinions. That's one of them. Like many of the views you hold, it is a relatively recent innovation. The key point is that no particular logic compels your conclusion. God could just as logically have required a lesser satisfaction, or none at all. This was well known and understood until the Reformation.

You believe any method of redemption other than the Atonement would be inconsistent with God's nature. Other sects have believed the Atonement itself was inconsistent with God's nature and that Christ's work was only to teach by word and example. They also rejected the sacraments, but for opposite reasons. Again, all of these are just opinions.

Catholics believe the Atonement effects God's grace because God made it so. It's the same with the sacraments. Augustine reminds us that God's merciful love is the cause, not the result, of satisfaction for our sins. Even such concepts as satisfaction, ransom, payment of debt, or vicarious punishment are figures based on human custom and understanding.

Finally, in case it hasn't been clear, Catholics do not (and need not) believe a person will go to hell if he dies right after becoming a Christian. The sacraments are required, not for their own sake, but as means to keep us in a state of grace.
You realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal.

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.
Of course God's attributes are eternal.
Then your entire argument has failed. You are arguing that God doesn't have to be holy. If God must be holy, then he must require perfect atonement. Not "lesser satisfaction". If God doesn't have to be holy, then the perfect sacrifice of his Son Jesus was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?
I understand that Calvin ran into a serious problem with his predestinarian doctrine, that is, if salvation is entirely determined by God then why is atonement needed at all? He explained it by inventing the theory which you now take as both gospel truth and logical necessity. In fact it is neither. If human judges have the right to require less than perfect satisfaction, all the more so does God.


Imagine all those poor souls that met their end for 1500 years before Calvin clarified the Bible for everyone and explained what was really going on. . They all rotting in hell because they never had the chance to believe in what Calvin concocted. Tsk tsk
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, you two are way more complex than I am. I believe one is saved by faith; however, when they open the book of life on each of us our actions/works need to have reflected our beliefs. I'm interested in how you two interpret that. Additionally, if Catholics believe that or in something different. (I'm aware that the first three sacraments they practice is a bit different.)
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Ok, not going to argue the point as y'all are intellectually well over my head. I am a simple, basic guy so I was wondering how, in this situation, one would define the difference between a Christian who is a Protestant and a Christian who is a Catholic.

I understand if this question is not worth your time. Although I have some peripheral issues with certain aspects of Catholicism, I do believe I shall see some in heaven.
Hello again BUDOS, and again an excellent question.

I would start with your last statement, regarding what kind of people you will see in Heaven. The Bible makes plain that God said "I will have mercy on whom I will have Mercy", which some misunderstand but it certainly reminds us that God is Sovereign, and a disagreement on details should never lead someone to presume someone else's fate.

Speaking for myself, I have met a great many people whom I feel have a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and God shall not leave behind even one of those who love Him. As someone who has received a great deal of Grace from the Lord, I hope I will not be someone who is a stumbling block for another.

As you have read through this thread, BUDOS, you have seen how strong some opinions are, and also how strong some assumptions are. More than one here who claims to have a heart of good will and an open mind, has made statements asserting a superior quality for his beliefs over a different group, and always we see the word Doctrine stated or implied, to such a degree that some imply error on some point can cost someone their eternal home in Heaven.

To your first question, then, I believe that Roman Catholics are like people of other Christian denominations; they agree intellectually with the tenets taught and are emotionally comfortable with the culture of the church they attend. In this way the Roman Catholics are very similar to Protestants. The difference is in the Doctrines of the different groups. There is a rough agreement among Protestants that Scripture is the primary foundation for a sound church doctrine, while the Roman Catholics also place a lot of weight on Tradition, which is to say that Roman Catholic teachings have near-Scripture authority.

It's an understatement that there is sharp disagreement on the value of Tradition. No one claims it has no value, and not even all Roman Catholics consider Tradition the equal of Christ's words.

Complicating the matter are some odd behaviors among different groups. Protestants generally do not regard their more extreme groups, like those who refuse to use doctors in the belief that would reflect not trusting God, while Roman Catholics have embraced and protected the actions of some extreme groups like Opus Dei within their fold.

Again speaking for myself, I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know people from a great many belief groups, such as Buddhists in China, Mormons in Houston, and of course many from more pedestrian denominations like the Roman Catholics or Episcopalians. I was raised Baptist but also attended United Methodist churches when I was young. I have sadly known too many hypocrites, and there is no group without some. But I have found people with a healthy spiritual relationship with God in many places, and one thing they seem to have in common is the ability to have confident joy in the Lord without getting angry when they hear or read someone else with a different opinion.

It's always been useful for me to read the arguments on doctrine from leading thinkers who can express their case with logic and respect for other opinions. A good example to me is the exchange between C.S. Lewis (Protestant) and G.K. Chesterton (Roman Catholic), two brilliant men who were also good friends. Their debates are well worth considering.

For all the words, I hope this post is helpful.

Thank you for your attention.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Hey, you two are way more complex than I am. I believe one is saved by faith; however, when they open the book of life on each of us our actions/works need to have reflected our beliefs. I'm interested in how you two interpret that. Additionally, if Catholics believe that or in something different. (I'm aware that the first three sacraments they practice is a bit different.)
You believe one is saved by faith. Faith in what?
First Page Last Page
Page 119 of 189
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.