curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

---

If you deny that the Holy Spirit aids the believer in discernment, including the truth of Scripture, then you have another false, unbiblical belief.

Again, keep attacking. It only reveals the spirit behind you and it makes my case stronger.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

No, not happy. Because this is still blatant heresy and idolatry. You don't go to Mary for salvation, you go directly to Jesus. If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

---

I don't go to the Blessed Virgin Mary for salvation. How dense are you? You asked for an alternative explanation and I answered your request.

---

I didn't say YOU go to Mary for salvation. How dense are YOU?

And your answer wasn't an alternative explanation at all. It was the same heresy and idolatry.

---

Stupidity confirmed. Along with a spirit of evil.

---

Ironic.

curtpenn said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

---

You are as snarky as I am and make up crap such as "sola mi feelings", for example. Don't pretend you are any better, asshat.

I don't believe I need anyone to tell me what Holy Scriptures means, least of all tools such as you.

---

Ahh, so YOU have the authority to tell yourself what Scripture means, after you just told me I don't? You are getting lost and can't keep track of your own argument.

No, I can objectively say that I have behaved much better than you. Occasionally snarky, yes. But still, I haven't devolved to the level of calling others "asshat".

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:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

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.

---

It comes down to a question of authority. If no tradition is authoritative, then in practice everything is subjective. Of course Scripture is objectively true, but it doesn't interpret itself. Everyone relies on some form of tradition, or "commentaries, writings, and debate," as BTD calls it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

---

If you deny that the Holy Spirit aids the believer in discernment, including the truth of Scripture, then you have another false, unbiblical belief.

Again, keep attacking. It only reveals the spirit behind you and it makes my case stronger.

---

Show me where I deny" the Holy Spirit aids the believer in discernment", ******bag. Just another straw man from you. Keep piling up the errors, it only makes my case stronger.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

---

You are as snarky as I am and make up crap such as "sola mi feelings", for example. Don't pretend you are any better, asshat.

I don't believe I need anyone to tell me what Holy Scriptures means, least of all tools such as you.

---

Ahh, so YOU have the authority to tell yourself what Scripture means, after you just told me I don't? You are getting lost and can't keep track of your own argument.

No, I can objectively say that I have behaved much better than you. Occasionally snarky, yes. But still, I haven't devolved to the level of calling others "asshat".

---

You may tell yourself you have authority to interpret Holy Scripture, but that doesn't prevent you from error. Try to keep up. You are the one who is lost. Just another straw man. I'm losing count.

Your smug self righteousness oozes from post after post while you take exception to mild language. Typical behavior for a milquetoast limp wrister whose head is so far up his butt he's capable of an auto colonoscopy. Hypocrite.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

---

But wasn't there "bickering" between you and FreedomBear, for like three pages?

---

You truly are the tool of Satan. I rebuke you.

---

Right. Notice you said "I" rebuke you. Fitting, you are your own authority.

In contrast, I say that YOU are a tool of Satan and THE LORD rebuke you.

---

You hide behind words such as "THE LORD rebuke you", but I'm certain everyone here knows you really mean "I rebuke you". Liar and hypocrite.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

... What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

---

You twist my meaning to suit your ends and claim that as proof. Again. Typical methodology for a Paul Pressler starter kit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

It comes down to a question of authority. If no tradition is authoritative, then in practice everything is subjective. Of course Scripture is objectively true, but it doesn't interpret itself. Everyone relies on some form of tradition, or "commentaries, writings, and debate," as BTD calls it.

---

Yes, I fully agree with you - the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the basis of authority. Roman Catholicism holds the fallible tradition of man and their fallible Magisterium on an equal level of authority with Scripture, and that has been the main driver of all her tragic errors. While Scripture does not interpret itself (actually, sometimes it does), that doesn't mean it's too difficult for lay people to understand. Of course writings and commentaries are a form of tradition, but they are traditions regarding Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is still functioning as the sole infallible authority for the church. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there won't be disagreement over what some difficult parts of Scripture means or that traditions are never authoritative, it means that Scripture is the only thing the church has in its possession that is God-breathed and is thus infallible, thus all traditions must be weighed against it. No one faults the Roman Catholic Church for submitting to the authority of her traditions, the problem is when the tradition is not supported by or even contradicts Scripture.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryWOW. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

---

What do you mean by "union with sin?" If God merely deems us righteous because of our faith, without requiring or effecting any transformation on our part, is that not union with sin?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

Sam LowryYou 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

---

What do you mean by "union with sin?" If God merely deems us righteous because of our faith, without requiring or effecting any transformation on our part, is that not union with sin?

---

THAT's the gospel! God can deem us righteous because of our faith in Jesus, whose sacrifice was the once for all payment for our sin, the perfect atoning sacrifice. Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith.

Read Romans 3: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryYou 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

---

What do you mean by "union with sin?" If God merely deems us righteous because of our faith, without requiring or effecting any transformation on our part, is that not union with sin?

---

THAT's the gospel! God can deem us righteous because of our faith in Jesus, whose sacrifice was the once for all payment for our sin, the perfect atoning sacrifice. Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith.

Read Romans 3: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

---

Well, there you have it. God can and did pass over sins in his divine forbearance. He put forth Christ in order to show his righteousness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryYou 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

---

What do you mean by "union with sin?" If God merely deems us righteous because of our faith, without requiring or effecting any transformation on our part, is that not union with sin?

---

THAT's the gospel! God can deem us righteous because of our faith in Jesus, whose sacrifice was the once for all payment for our sin, the perfect atoning sacrifice. Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith.

Read Romans 3: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

---

Well, there you have it. God can and did pass over sins in his divine forbearance. He put forth Christ in order to show his righteousness.

---

He was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ironically, the early Romans who followed Christ did the same, before Constantine corrupted them with wealth and earthly power.

---

Please explain how Constantine "corrupted them with wealth and earthly power" and site your historical source. I would like to verify this claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And let us never forget that the true 'original church' was founded not in Rome but in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and found its first leaders in Jerusalem and also places like Galilee and even Samaria.

---

Jerusalem was the birth of the Church. It happened started on Pentecost.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Actually, the Christian community was already established in Rome before he wrote his epistle and visited them.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

You might check your claim with Google, Bing, Wiki, and Britannica who all state that Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church.

It is a historical fact.

No one disputes Jesus founded the Church.

But your popes, well, a lot of what they claimed for themselves was due to believers who followed Christ, not a Pope.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one disputes Jesus founded the Church.

But your popes, well, a lot of what they claimed for themselves was due to believers who followed Christ, not a Pope.

---

What did they claim for themselves?

Second question, if Jesus founded the Catholic Church, why would one choose any other version of Christianity?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one disputes Jesus founded the Church.

But your popes, well, a lot of what they claimed for themselves was due to believers who followed Christ, not a Pope.

---

What did they claim for themselves?

Second question, if Jesus founded the Catholic Church, why would one choose any other version of Christianity?

---

Whatever Jesus founded, the Roman Catholic Church ain't it. That's been made abundantly clear. No one is trying to insult Catholics by saying this, it's just telling you guys the truth. The sooner you realize it the better.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.